Turning right.

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

It's very satisfying when you do it :-)

You need to make it obvious you know what you're doing, and you're in
control of the situation. Which means being swift and firm.

cheers,
clive

Tony Raven said:

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!

Not really, no.

Where the line falls between ignoring it entirely and demonstrating
that what he's said is twaddle varies. Mostly, I agree, ignoring it
entirely is appropriate. Occasionally, I still think it's worth
pointing out the errors.

In this particular case, I think it's worth highlighting that actually
there's no need to take anything he says at face value - the report is
readily and freely available.

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

Ian Smith said:

Tony Raven said:

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!

Not really, no.

Agreed. If you have a point to make, then make it. If two parties
disagree, then let them slug it out.

Quoted message said:

Where the line falls between ignoring it entirely and demonstrating
that what he's said is twaddle varies.

If "twaddle" is said, then it /needs/ to be demonstrated. This is why I
challenged Ian's "twaddle". He exaggerated and indeed, misrepresented
what the report said - and I pointed that out.

Quoted message said:

Mostly, I agree, ignoring it
entirely is appropriate.

Yes, ignore it when you agree with it. It /would/ be too much to expect
a post supporting it. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Occasionally, I still think it's worth
pointing out the errors.

It is /always/ worth pointing out errors, and with Ian's posts that is
often /very/ easy, and I will continue to do it.

Quoted message said:

In this particular case, I think it's worth highlighting that actually
there's no need to take anything he says at face value - the report is
readily and freely available.

And from it we can see that what I have said is correct. Now Ian, where
does that leave your case? Yes - in shreds.

--
Matt B

Martin Dann said the following on 26/07/2007 23:26:

Quoted message said:

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.

Try it - it's fun! I think drivers are so surprised that they give way
without thinking about it. You might want to choose your "victim"
carefully though :-)

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

Ian Smith said:

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

going though the report now, thoughts

intresting that 17 to 24 are the safest of the group for cyclist's not
normally a age range thought of as safe drivers.

that "professional" drivers HGV and Bus are less are less acempting
would seem to be true, cars do on the whole give you room, HGV and BUS
seem more likely to happly thunder past with inches to spare.

mind you i've noticed that i've become much less willing to let buses
out, now i live in a city. mainly as they quite often needlessly block
the road.

the old favs the road tax and redlight running, are there as negitives

certinaly does seem to be resentment from some quarters.

intresting the way cyclists are sterotyped, helmet = more serious though
they hated club runs etc.

car and cycle are not on the whole happy with cycle facilities.
resentment does seem to boil down to being held up, which ASL seem to
exasbate.

intresting that bikes are allways seen as in the wrong though cars are
essently are seen as normal behavour. the everyone does that argument.

i have to say i have very little faith in the questions what would you
do in this situation. i think it's highly likely that drivers would like
to think they would behave well, but may well behave differntly.

would seem that drivers don't care if bikes apear in control or not as
long as they keep left aka the gutter. to hold the road is
inconsiderate, in the drivers view though intresting doesn't seem to
increase if there is bike lane to ride in.

i think i'd go with the poor road design exasbating drivers anoyace.
localy hampton court road is one that springs to mind. 40 zone with ped
refuages in the middle and narrow cycle lanes painted on the sides of
the road.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

_ said:

A law which enforced immediate withdrawl of the priviledge of driving
whenever a collision resulting in injury, until such time as the driver(s)
had been found to be not at fault might do wonders.

It would result in more illegal and fewer legal drivers, and we all know
that illegal drivers are responsible for a disproportionate number of
casualties.

See if you can think of a solution that might just result in less, not
more casualties.

I take it you _are_ interested in road safety, and not just entrapping,
and punishing motorists.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

_ said:

A law which enforced immediate withdrawl of the priviledge of driving
whenever a collision resulting in injury, until such time as the
driver(s)
had been found to be not at fault might do wonders.

It would result in more illegal and fewer legal drivers, and we all know
that illegal drivers are responsible for a disproportionate number of
casualties.

For this to be significant you would have to believe that a person will
drive more dangerously after they have become 'illegal'.
Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B said:

_ said:

A law which enforced immediate withdrawl of the priviledge of driving
whenever a collision resulting in injury, until such time as the
driver(s)
had been found to be not at fault might do wonders.

It would result in more illegal and fewer legal drivers, and we all
know that illegal drivers are responsible for a disproportionate
number of casualties.

For this to be significant you would have to believe that a person will
drive more dangerously after they have become 'illegal'.

Presumably there is a reason for requiring them to have a licence,
number plate, insurance, motor vehicle road tax, MOT, etc.

Do you think it is naive to suggest that any of those things make a
driver safer? Could it be that they are superfluous to road safety, or
even that /they/ make drivers more dangerous?

--
Matt B

Martin Dann 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.

Martin.

3 arm minis are the bain of society lol. Its one of those places where
the "just proceed with caution" method works well - just go about your
business but be willing to stop. Our local council has started making
one arm (the largest/fastest) a specifically give way and the other
two unmarked, this means that the other two slower arms just enter
happily assuming theyre in the right and the fast one gives way - it
tends to lead to a natural pecking order instead of stale mate.

Quoted message said:

Presumably there is a reason for requiring them to have a licence, number
plate, insurance, motor vehicle road tax, MOT, etc.

Are you suggesting (just want to make sure I understand this) that a test on
a motor vehicle which sets a minimus standard for things like, for example,
brakes, lights, tyres and suspension has no relevence to safety?

I know, feeding troll, but it is a slow Friday.

Jackbike said:

Quoted message said:

Presumably there is a reason for requiring them to have a licence, number
plate, insurance, motor vehicle road tax, MOT, etc.

Are you suggesting (just want to make sure I understand this) that a test on
a motor vehicle which sets a minimus standard for things like, for example,
brakes, lights, tyres and suspension has no relevence to safety?

No, I was asking the PP whether /he/ thought the things in that list had
a purpose (safety or otherwise). The reason I was asking is in the part
that you have snipped, but essentially, exploring whether an illegal
driver was more likely to be a less safe driver.

Quoted message said:

I know, feeding troll, but it is a slow Friday.

Are you suggesting that /I/ am a troll? I hope you're not.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

_ said:

A law which enforced immediate withdrawl of the priviledge of
driving
whenever a collision resulting in injury, until such time as the
driver(s)
had been found to be not at fault might do wonders.

It would result in more illegal and fewer legal drivers, and we all
know that illegal drivers are responsible for a disproportionate
number of casualties.

[snip]

Presumably they will not be insured, either. There's some fund that
pays out in such cases, I believe. Does anyone know how well it
works?

Jeremy Parker

"Jeremy Parker" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Presumably they will not be insured, either. There's some fund that
pays out in such cases, I believe. Does anyone know how well it
works?

I believe it's the MIB (Motor Insurers Bureau)
They do pay some compensation.

http://www.mib.org.uk/MIB/en/Default.htm

See you tomorrow...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

"Jeremy Parker" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Presumably they will not be insured, either. There's some fund that
pays out in such cases, I believe. Does anyone know how well it
works?

I believe it's the MIB (Motor Insurers Bureau)
They do pay some compensation.

http://www.mib.org.uk/MIB/en/Default.htm

See you tomorrow...

If the driver is not insured, or (as in my case) a Hit and
run, you claim against the MIB. They send someone round to
get a statement from you, you then have to submit to a
medical examination. If they agree they offer you
compensation. It took well over a year for a 3k payout for
two bones broken in my left arm. And my arm has never
fully recovered.