Turning right.

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I was approaching a 3 exit mini roundabout today to turn right. There were
cars behind me, and cars approaching the roundabout about from the left
and right. So I signalled right as I approached.

As was arriving I saw that the car from the right was going to get there
before me, so I slowed down to give way, unfortunately the driver decided
to wait for me to go. The car from the left arrived after me so stopped
and waited for me.

So there we all were sat waiting for each other to go, when the car from
the right should have gone.

This sort of thing happens fairly often when I signal right, and the
traffic that has right of way gives way stopping everyone.

Am I the only one that gets this behaviour which I find disconcerting.

Deadlocks seem normal on mini roundabouts. Usually it needs to be broken by
the last in. It does seem to happen more when riding than driving and
naturally I am more reluctant to break it when riding.

A similar situation to yours happened to me a few weeks ago. I arrived at
the leg of a T shaped mini and was waitng for for a gap in freely moving
cross traffic. A driver on my right stopped (clearly out of pointless
courtesy, not concern for my safety, as others have suggested) and waved me
on. I refused and waved back. The driver hesitated and kept waving me on so
I shouted "you have priority". She finally got the message and continued.
The confusion caused the next two cars entering the roundabout to have a
near coming together. Now, I got a proper my gap on the right so I started
off, only to have the driver entering on my left cut it fine in front of
me.

I don't find unnecessary courtesy particularly unusual while riding. It is
invariably a time waster because it takes time to register what they are up
to - one rule of the road being, unusual behaviour = unseen hazard.

DavidR said:

I don't find unnecessary courtesy particularly unusual while riding. It is
invariably a time waster because it takes time to register what they are up
to - one rule of the road being, unusual behaviour = unseen hazard.

and 9 times out of ten the driver who is seeking the personal
satisfaction of a warm glow from a "good turn" hasn't bothered looking
in their mirror ( they only use one) to note that there is no other
traffic behind them.

marc said:

DavidR said:

I don't find unnecessary courtesy particularly unusual while riding.
It is invariably a time waster because it takes time to register what
they are up to - one rule of the road being, unusual behaviour =
unseen hazard.

and 9 times out of ten the driver who is seeking the personal
satisfaction of a warm glow from a "good turn" hasn't bothered looking
in their mirror ( they only use one) to note that there is no other
traffic behind them.

One thing I absolutely hate when on foot, is when I am
waiting to cross a road, and the last car in a long queue
of traffic stops to let me cross. It takes longer to cross
than if that car had just gone.
When I as a kiddie, there was a road I crossed daily that
regularly too five minutes to cross. At least once a week
the last car would stop with nothing behind him.

Martin Dann said:

One thing I absolutely hate when on foot, is when I am
waiting to cross a road, and the last car in a long queue
of traffic stops to let me cross. It takes longer to cross
than if that car had just gone.

Last car stopping syndrome. Logically it makes no sense but it happens
so regularly that I think it's highly problem there is a psychological
factor of some kind at work that puts pressure on the last driver to
stop in a display of excessive politeness that wastes the time of the
person he's stopping for as well as his own. Possibly the awareness
that he won't be holding up anyone behind him by stopping has
something to do with it.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Martin Dann said:

One thing I absolutely hate when on foot, is when I am
waiting to cross a road, and the last car in a long queue
of traffic stops to let me cross. It takes longer to cross
than if that car had just gone.

Last car stopping syndrome. Logically it makes no sense but it
happens so regularly that I think it's highly problem there is a
psychological factor of some kind at work that puts pressure on the
last driver to stop in a display of excessive politeness that
wastes the time of the person he's stopping for as well as his own.
Possibly the awareness that he won't be holding up anyone behind
him by stopping has something to do with it.

Exactly.

Read the TRL(?) report about attitudes of motorists to cyclists.
Motorists find the fear of inconveniencing another motorist to be more
stressful than the fear of killing a cyclist. They readily identify
behaviours they should take but don't because of concern about the
motorist behind them. For example, they will know they should wait to
overtake the cyclist ahead, but decide to squeeze past because of fear
of what the chap driving the car behind might think, and accept this
as so normal that they'll admit it.

When rating how stressful certain driving mistakes are, anything that
affects other motorists is more stressful than anything that endangers
cyclists. Stalling when the lights go green (and thus delaying the
car behind) is much more stressful than left-hooking a cyclist at a
junction. Even just accidently knocking the indicators on when you
didn't mean to is more stressful than nearly knocking off a cyclist.

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

I said:

so regularly that I think it's highly problem there is a psychological
factor of some kind at work

Should have been:

so regularly that I think it's highly /likely/ there is a
psychological
factor of some kind at work

--
Dave...

Ian Smith said:

When rating how stressful certain driving mistakes are, anything that
affects other motorists is more stressful than anything that endangers
cyclists. Stalling when the lights go green (and thus delaying the
car behind) is much more stressful than left-hooking a cyclist at a
junction. Even just accidently knocking the indicators on when you
didn't mean to is more stressful than nearly knocking off a cyclist.

This helps explain why motorists will often cut you up when another
driver gives way to them and waves them across your path even though
they have obviously seen you. On the odd occasion when the waved-on
motorist correctly holds back you will often see the waving-on
motorist getting visibly upset and waving him or her on ever more
frantically. (Be careful approaching this situation on a bike, it's
dangerous.) However, it's not a complete explanation as they will also
cut up other motorists when waved on, and last car stopping syndrome
also occurs when you are driving though I think to a lesser extent.
Social pressure of being yielded to seems to be very high, even to the
point of causing people to offend others of equal status let alone us
who are at the bottom of the pecking order.

--
Dave...

In news:[email hidden],
dkahn400 <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

One thing I absolutely hate when on foot, is when I am
waiting to cross a road, and the last car in a long queue
of traffic stops to let me cross. It takes longer to cross
than if that car had just gone.

Last car stopping syndrome. Logically it makes no sense but it happens
so regularly that I think it's highly problem there is a psychological
factor of some kind at work that puts pressure on the last driver to
stop in a display of excessive politeness that wastes the time of the
person he's stopping for as well as his own. Possibly the awareness
that he won't be holding up anyone behind him by stopping has
something to do with it.

Of course this would require him to look in his mirror, and we know[1] that
it is /impossible/ for a moton to look anywhere other than straight ahead
;-)

1 - because the speedophiles tell us it is impossible to look at at the
dashboard more than once a fortnight

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Drugs are good, except when they kill you.

Dave Larrington said the following on 26/07/2007 10:59:

Quoted message said:

1 - because the speedophiles tell us it is impossible to look at at the
dashboard more than once a fortnight

Except to fiddle with their sat-navs and radar detectors :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ian Smith said:

Read the TRL(?) report about attitudes of motorists to cyclists.

Do you have a reference ?

Thanks.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email hidden]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Ian Jackson said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ian Smith said:

Read the TRL(?) report about attitudes of motorists to cyclists.

Do you have a reference ?

Not immediately to hand, but I'll try an find it. It's on the web
(free download) but a quick search just now didn't find it. I think
I have it on paper at home - I'll have a look.

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

On Jul 26, 10:59 am, "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Of course this would require him to look in his mirror, and we know[1] that
it is /impossible/ for a moton to look anywhere other than straight ahead
;-)

1 - because the speedophiles tell us it is impossible to look at at the
dashboard more than once a fortnight

This is the easy answer but Last Car Stopping Syndrome (LCSS) is so
common that I think it usually happens because the moton knows he is
last in the line not because he doesn't know it.

Logically LCSS makes no sense at all so it must be prompted by
psychological factors. Firstly the moton feels comfortable about
stopping because there is no-one behind and it's therefore unstressful
to do so. Secondly the moton has the lowest status in his line of
traffic because he's Tail End Charlie. By stopping and yielding right
of way he gains an increase in status. He's emphasising his power over
the yielded-to person by the act of choosing to yield.

The increase in status is easily worth the time lost in yielding. The
time lost by the yielded-to person is not a consideration as he starts
with lower status than the yielder because he is already waiting for
him.

Hmmm... this might have legs. I feel a paper coming on. :-)

--
Dave...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ian Smith said:

Not immediately to hand, but I'll try an find it. It's on the web
(free download) but a quick search just now didn't find it. I think
I have it on paper at home - I'll have a look.

Hmm, I found
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/53/article11.html
which has a reference to
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/cycling/TRL549.pdf

But a quick search found this
http://www.trl.co.uk/store/downloadreport.asp?id=2700

So never mind, thanks :-).

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email hidden]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Ian Smith said:

Read the TRL(?) report about attitudes of motorists to cyclists.

Now let's examine whether, by chance, your summary of it has been
coloured in anyway by, perhaps, any prejudice or preconceptions of yours...

Quoted message said:

Motorists find the fear of inconveniencing another motorist to be more
stressful than the fear of killing a cyclist.

No, it doesn't say that. It suggests that they find inconveniencing
other drivers to be more stressful than being inconvenienced by cyclists.

Quoted message said:

They readily identify
behaviours they should take but don't because of concern about the
motorist behind them.

No, it doesn't say that, it suggests that they _think_ that the majority
of _other_ drivers would do that.

Quoted message said:

For example, they will know they should wait to
overtake the cyclist ahead, but decide to squeeze past because of fear
of what the chap driving the car behind might think, and accept this
as so normal that they'll admit it.

Or as the report puts it:

"despite understanding the ideal behaviour when encountering a cyclist,
many drivers consider that the majority response would actually be to
attempt to pass the cyclist.".

Quoted message said:

When rating how stressful certain driving mistakes are, anything that
affects other motorists is more stressful than anything that endangers
cyclists.

No, things that affect other motorists are more stressful than being
affected by a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Stalling when the lights go green (and thus delaying the
car behind) is much more stressful than left-hooking a cyclist at a
junction.

No, than having a cyclist on the left.

Quoted message said:

Even just accidently knocking the indicators on when you
didn't mean to is more stressful than nearly knocking off a cyclist.

No, more stressful than being held-up behind a cyclist, or than having a
cyclist on the left.

Ian, have you actually read the report???

--
Matt B

Ian Jackson said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ian Smith said:

Not immediately to hand, but I'll try an find it. It's on the web
(free download) but a quick search just now didn't find it. I think
I have it on paper at home - I'll have a look.

which has a reference to
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/cycling/TRL549.pdf

That's the one.

Table 3 tells you that left-hooking a cyclist is less worrying than
almost anything. While you're there, glance at table 5 below it -
most motorists agree that breaking the speed limit is OK, drivers who
delay other drivers are the most annoying road users (but note that
earlier the report determines that motorists don't regard cyclists as
actual road users) and cyclists should be on pavements.

A scary, scary read.

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

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Ian Smith said:

Read the TRL(?) report about attitudes of motorists to cyclists.

Now let's examine whether, by chance, your summary of it has been
coloured in anyway by, perhaps, any prejudice or preconceptions of
yours...

I will address the straight factual errors in your drivel with
references to teh document and anyone that actually cares can see for
themselves. The link to teh actual report has been quoted. It is
TRL549.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Motorists find the fear of inconveniencing another motorist to be
more stressful than the fear of killing a cyclist.

No, it doesn't say that. It suggests that they find
inconveniencing other drivers to be more stressful than being
inconvenienced by cyclists.

Yes it does. Table 3 shows it quite clearly, which is nothing to do
with what you claim. Turning left with a cyclist on their inside is
less stressful (scoring 5.40) than stalling at traffic lights (scoring
3.95, lower score = more stressful).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They readily identify behaviours they should take but don't
because of concern about the motorist behind them.

No, it doesn't say that, it suggests that they _think_ that the
majority of _other_ drivers would do that.

Yes it does.

"When encountering a cyclist in circumstances that require care, most
drivers appear to recognise that they should give consideration to teh
cyclist. However, their actaul behaviour may be affected by their
perception of teh social norm and teh related pressure they feel from
other drivers".

Note THEIR behaviour, teh pressure THEY feel, not what they think
other drivers feel.

"drivers know what they should do but feel pressured by other drivers
into adopting teh perceived social norm of moderate impatience towards
cyclists"

Note what THEY should do, but they feel pressured.

Quoted message said:

Or as the report puts it:

"despite understanding the ideal behaviour when encountering a
cyclist, many drivers consider that the majority response would
actually be to attempt to pass the cyclist.".

Yes they say that AS WELL as what I said.

Shock horror - I didn't report every single thing that can be found in
38 pages of closely-spaced text. If you think anything I said implies
I was describing every single element of information in teh whole of
teh report you are an idiot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When rating how stressful certain driving mistakes are, anything
that affects other motorists is more stressful than anything that
endangers cyclists.

No, things that affect other motorists are more stressful than
being affected by a cyclist.

Read table 3.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stalling when the lights go green (and thus delaying the car
behind) is much more stressful than left-hooking a cyclist at a
junction.

No, than having a cyclist on the left.

Than (I quote) "left turn, cyclist inside".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even just accidently knocking the indicators on when you didn't
mean to is more stressful than nearly knocking off a cyclist.

No, more stressful than being held-up behind a cyclist, or than
having a cyclist on the left.

Yes, more stressful than being held up behind a cyclist. It is ALSO
more stressful being held up behind a cyclist. Being stuck behind a
cyclist is actually more stressful than turning left with a cyclist on
teh inside, but only slightly so.

More shock - it seems there are at least two! things in the 38 pages I
didn't repeat in my posting. You really are an idiot. What on earth
makes you think that if I comment on four things out of a whole report
that must be the absolute total of everything in teh report.

Quoted message said:

Ian, have you actually read the report???

I have. It doesn't look like you have - it looks like you stopped
about a third of teh way through, after the bit about what drivers
think other drivers think and before the bit about what drivers think
themselves.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Ian Jackson said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ian Smith said:

Not immediately to hand, but I'll try an find it. It's on the web
(free download) but a quick search just now didn't find it. I think
I have it on paper at home - I'll have a look.

which has a reference to
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/cycling/TRL549.pdf

That's the one.

Table 3 tells you that left-hooking a cyclist is less worrying than
almost anything.

No, it tells you that of the 8 scenarios, having a cyclist on the inside
whilst intending to turn left is not so stressful as 6 of the others.

Quoted message said:

While you're there, glance at table 5 below it -
most motorists agree that breaking the speed limit is OK,

No, on the contrary, with a mean value of 3.92 (9 being max agreement),
it even says so in the text:

"In fact, with the midpoint on the nine-point rating scale being five,
on balance all statements tended to be disagreed with, including both of
those that expressed reactions against cyclists."

Your preconceptions blind you even to the explicit statement that most
drivers _disagree_ that breaking the speed limit is OK.

Quoted message said:

drivers who
delay other drivers are the most annoying road users

Another statement with which the mean answer (4.57) was of _disagreement_.

Quoted message said:

(but note that
earlier the report determines that motorists don't regard cyclists as
actual road users) and cyclists should be on pavements.

"Cyclists should be on pavements: 4.18" = a mean _disagreement_.

Quoted message said:

A scary, scary read.

Not if you actually _read_, rather than preconceive, what it actually says.

--
Matt B

Ian Smith said:

On Thu, 26 Jul, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

I will address the straight factual errors in your drivel with
references to teh document and anyone that actually cares can see for
themselves. The link to teh actual report has been quoted. It is
TRL549.

Troll wrestle alert!

Tony

Ian Smith said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Ian Smith said:

Read the TRL(?) report about attitudes of motorists to cyclists.

Now let's examine whether, by chance, your summary of it has been
coloured in anyway by, perhaps, any prejudice or preconceptions of
yours...

I will address the straight factual errors

This is going to be a short post then. ;-)

Quoted message said:

in your drivel

Charming.

Quoted message said:

with
references to teh document and anyone that actually cares can see for
themselves. The link to teh actual report has been quoted. It is
TRL549.

This should be entertaining then...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Motorists find the fear of inconveniencing another motorist to be
more stressful than the fear of killing a cyclist.

No, it doesn't say that. It suggests that they find
inconveniencing other drivers to be more stressful than being
inconvenienced by cyclists.

Yes it does.

"Yes it does" what? Are you agreeing with the second sentence, or
disagreeing with the first?

Quoted message said:

Table 3 shows it quite clearly, which is nothing to do
with what you claim.

Ah, OK, you're disagreeing with the first. Table 3 shows exactly what I
said - "...that they find inconveniencing other drivers to be more
stressful than being inconvenienced by cyclists".

Quoted message said:

Turning left with a cyclist on their inside is
less stressful (scoring 5.40) than stalling at traffic lights (scoring
3.95, lower score = more stressful).

Yes - in what way does that contradict what I said: "that they find
inconveniencing other drivers to be more stressful" (e.g. stalling at
traffic lights) "than being inconvenienced by cyclists" (e.g. having one
up the inside whist intending to turn left)???

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They readily identify behaviours they should take but don't
because of concern about the motorist behind them.

No, it doesn't say that, it suggests that they _think_ that the
majority of _other_ drivers would do that.

Yes it does.

"When encountering a cyclist in circumstances that require care, most
drivers appear to recognise that they should give consideration to teh
cyclist. However, their actaul behaviour may be affected by their
perception of teh social norm and teh related pressure they feel from
other drivers".

Note the key word here: "may". They used that word because they had no
reason to say "would", and they knew, from the answers to the questions,
that they thought that the majority of other drivers would do that -
like I said.

Quoted message said:

Note THEIR behaviour, teh pressure THEY feel, not what they think
other drivers feel.

What their perception of the social norm is is from the answer that they
feel that the majority of other drivers would do that - as I said.
There is no evidence to imply that they _would_ themselves.

Quoted message said:

"drivers know what they should do but feel pressured by other drivers
into adopting teh perceived social norm of moderate impatience towards
cyclists"

Feel pressured - yes, derived from the answers to what they think others
would do.

Quoted message said:

Note what THEY should do, but they feel pressured.

Yes, like I said.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or as the report puts it:

"despite understanding the ideal behaviour when encountering a
cyclist, many drivers consider that the majority response would
actually be to attempt to pass the cyclist.".

Yes they say that AS WELL as what I said.

No, they only said that - the report then extrapolates that into the
"may" statement which you then misunderstood, or misinterpreted.

Quoted message said:

Shock horror - I didn't report every single thing that can be found in
38 pages of closely-spaced text.

No. Did you actually report /any/ of it? It seems most of what you
reported isn't actually there at all.

Quoted message said:

If you think anything I said implies
I was describing every single element of information in teh whole of
teh report you are an idiot.

Was it an attempt to give a balanced summary?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When rating how stressful certain driving mistakes are, anything
that affects other motorists is more stressful than anything that
endangers cyclists.

No, things that affect other motorists are more stressful than
being affected by a cyclist.

Read table 3.

Yes, I did, that's why I corrected what you said. They found "left
turn, cyclist inside", and "stuck behind cyclist" less stressful than
any of the situations that may have affected other motorists - as I said.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stalling when the lights go green (and thus delaying the car
behind) is much more stressful than left-hooking a cyclist at a
junction.

No, than having a cyclist on the left.

Than (I quote) "left turn, cyclist inside".

Yes, as I said. No mention of inconveniencing the cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even just accidently knocking the indicators on when you didn't
mean to is more stressful than nearly knocking off a cyclist.

No, more stressful than being held-up behind a cyclist, or than
having a cyclist on the left.

Yes, more stressful than being held up behind a cyclist.

Thank you.

Quoted message said:

It is ALSO
more stressful being held up behind a cyclist.

Yes /that/ too Ian. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Being stuck behind a
cyclist is actually more stressful than turning left with a cyclist on
teh inside, but only slightly so.

Yes, like I said, so where's your attempt to justify "...than nearly
knocking off a cyclist"?

Quoted message said:

More shock - it seems there are at least two! things in the 38 pages I
didn't repeat in my posting.

Never mind the things you missed - I've lost count of the things you
added!!!

Quoted message said:

You really are an idiot.

Lol.

Quoted message said:

What on earth
makes you think that if I comment on four things out of a whole report
that must be the absolute total of everything in teh report.

As I said, I wasn't so much concerned about what you omitted, but about
what you added - "more stressful than the fear of killing a cyclist",
"more stressful than left-hooking a cyclist", "more stressful than
anything that endangers cyclists", "more stressful than nearly knocking
off a cyclist", ...

--
Matt B

dkahn400 said:

On Jul 26, 10:59 am, "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Of course this would require him to look in his mirror, and we know[1] that
it is /impossible/ for a moton to look anywhere other than straight ahead
;-)

1 - because the speedophiles tell us it is impossible to look at at the
dashboard more than once a fortnight

This is the easy answer but Last Car Stopping Syndrome (LCSS) is so
common that I think it usually happens because the moton knows he is
last in the line not because he doesn't know it.

Logically LCSS makes no sense at all so it must be prompted by
psychological factors. Firstly the moton feels comfortable about
stopping because there is no-one behind and it's therefore unstressful
to do so. Secondly the moton has the lowest status in his line of
traffic because he's Tail End Charlie. By stopping and yielding right
of way he gains an increase in status. He's emphasising his power over
the yielded-to person by the act of choosing to yield.

The increase in status is easily worth the time lost in yielding. The
time lost by the yielded-to person is not a consideration as he starts
with lower status than the yielder because he is already waiting for
him.

Hmmm... this might have legs. I feel a paper coming on. :-)

That is good thinking.

I often wonder when waiting at the side of the road whilst
a queue of cars slowly pass, whether to point at one, with
my other hand held up to stop it so I can cross. I keep
meaning to try it.

Martin.