Labour MP Margaret Hodge floors cyclist whilst talking on mobile phone

On May 6, 7:37*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2013 00:30, Squashme wrote:
On May 5, 7:55 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 05/05/2013 15:43, Squashme wrote:

On May 4, 10:03 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 04/05/2013 21:52, Squashme wrote:

On May 4, 3:46 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 04/05/2013 11:40, Squashme wrote:

On May 3, 8:46 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2013 20:34, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote:

On 03/05/2013 11:53, CJB wrote:
Labour MP Margaret Hodge accused of flooring cyclist with
her car door while talking on mobile phone
Cyclist clearly failing to use observation, anticipation &
hazard awareness skills.
He should have been charged with criminal damage to the car
door.

It *is* odd that cyclists expect sufficient clearance when
being overtaken that they can perform a deviation in course
as wide as they choose (the "wobble") and still not be hit
even when they suddenly veer into the path of overtaking
traffic, whilst on the other hand, they (or some of them at
least) cannot be trusted to do a simple thing like stay a few
feet away from the offside of a stationary passenger vehicle
where disgorging of its occupants (with always at least one
alighting from the offside) is easily prdictable and whose
occupants can actually be seen (by those who can be bothered
to look).

I typically travel along highways faster than a cyclist would
and could therefore claim that I need even more notice of a
vehicle door being opened in my path, yet in probably
something approaching a half million miles of driving in
urban areas, I have never even come close to hitting a
vehicle's opening or opened door, or an emerging vehicle
occupant.

It's a mystery that motorists manage to see cars, isn't it?

This issue is nothing to do with "motorists"

Oh, I see. It's the cyclists who open the doors is it?

It is (some) cyclists who fail to see the doors, possibly - nay,
probably - because they are not looking far enough ahead.

* *It is (some) motorists who fail to see the cyclists, possibly -
nay, probably - because they are not looking behind at all.

The cyclists do not bring the doors with them. The motorists are
surely not opening their doors expecting that they don't have to
look behind, or are they?

I've never even come close to hitting a door opened in front of me.
And that's in something in the order, over more than four decades,
of about a half-million urban miles. I'm not counting extra-urban
distance at all. If I can achieve such a record (and it's nothing the
slightest bit
unusual), why can't you, or any other cyclist?

And how many suddenly opened doors is that?

Lost count.

But I have never hit one, for a variety of different reasons in a
variety of different road conditions.

Sometimes, it's because I have stopped and *waited*. More cyclists
ought to try that one. It works well in preventing collisions in all
sorts of traffic situations.

But they might lose their momentum, and if they are clipped to their pedals
they may fall off.

It's quite fun to see how long one can balance without much forward
movement.

On May 6, 5:13*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2013 16:16, Squashme wrote:









On May 6, 2:34 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2013 13:37, Squashme wrote:
On May 6, 11:57 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2013 11:18, Squashme wrote:
On May 6, 11:13 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2013 10:52, Squashme wrote:
On May 6, 8:48 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2013 00:30, Squashme wrote:
On May 5, 7:55 pm, JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

I've never even come close to hitting a door opened in front of me. And
that's in something in the order, over more than four decades, of about
a half-million urban miles. I'm not counting extra-urban distance at all.

If I can achieve such a record (and it's nothing the slightest bit
unusual), why can't you, or any other cyclist?

And how many suddenly opened doors is that?

Lost count.

So a large number of careless motorist idiots.

On the contrary, a very, very, very small number (tending to zero and
those mainly in close-quarters situations such as maneouvring in
car-parks). I didn't count them, that's all.

So very little relevant experience.

I thought you said "careless motorist idiots"?
I really don't encounter many people opening doors in my path such that
I cannot stop or divert in time.

But motorists manage to hit quite a few pedestrians (and cyclists) who
come off the pavement heedlessly and suddenly. Are the motorists to
blame?

Not usually.
One does not expect people to ride bicycles off the footway onto the
carriageway (for more than one reason). One does not expect pedestrians
to suddenly move from the footway onto the carriageway because our
road-use conventions are different. Pedestrians are one thing, but there
is absolutely no reason why cyclists should move "heedlessly" from the
footway onto the carriageway.

One does not expect drivers to fling open car doors right in front of
cyclists, heedlessly.
But they do.

Stripping out the partisan hyperbole from what you say, I would retort
that you are wrong.

One *should* and *must* expect vehicle doors to be opened - and in
particular, the doors on the offside because there will always be an
occupant on that side (LHD vehicles excepted). If the door is not
opened, the driver won't be able to get out.

One should expect that a pedestrian will at some time leave the
pavement. If he does not do that, he will not be able to cross the
road. I am reliably informed that some pedestrians shop, and even
live, on the other side of the road. It would be a very foolish
motorist who drove along expecting that that sort of behaviour would
be limited to the proximity of Zebras and Panda crossings, wouldn't
it? At least as likely behaviour as the odd car disgorging a driver.
The vast majority of cars seem to lie around half-blocking the streets
with no person in them for most of the time. So why should one expect
that these husks will suddenly come to life and a door will open?
Whereas whenever you see a pedestrian, you know that there is a living
breathing human there, and they are quite capable of heading off in
all directions, on a whim.


OTOH, one does not expect (for instance) a cyclist to move quickly (or
at all) from footway to carriageway without looking and giving way
because first, he is not supposed to be cycling on the footway at all
and second, because when entering a carriageway from anywhere (let alone
a footway), the rule is "Give Way".

But surely with all the massive number of pavement cyclists, only a
negligent fool would not be expecting that one of them would cycle
into the road unexpectedly? You have a duty of care, surely?

"Look right, look left, look right again" is one way of putting it.









But I have never hit one, for a variety of different reasons in a
variety of different road conditions.
Sometimes, it's because I have stopped and *waited*. More cyclists ought
to try that one. It works well in preventing collisions in all sorts of
traffic situations.

Did you make emergency stops?
Did you take split-second evasive action?

Not that I can remember. I've always been proceeding at an appropriate
speed, on an appropriate course (these will vary by location and
road-type) and maintaining an appropriate level of awareness and
preparedness whilst keeping a proper and adequate lookout.
Try it.
It works.
I guarantee it.
Then you have no relevant experience.
You have an odd approach to problem-solving, don't you?
Instead of listening to those who know how to analyse and deal with the
problem, you prefer to take advice from those who clearly don't.
Weird.
Don't kid yourself. You don't know enough to analyse and deal with the
problem,

I've done alright so far.
On a bicycle?

Sometimes, certainly.

More often with a faster-moving vehicle (in which, if anything, I'd need
more notice and more space than a cyclist would, not less).

Is my luck about to change after 40+ years?

Soon enough.

Ooh... crystal ball time...

"former Transport Minister Steven Ladyman MP; he said that if you look
at the accidents per 100 million miles driven, "people once they reach
the age of 75 are as dangerous, on average, as newly qualified 17 year-
old drivers" This is arguably a better reflection of the real risks
faced by older drivers than other more frequently sited statistics
which don't adjust for distance travelled. This would also explain
difficulties with insurance older drivers can face.

Ladyman was a lying waste of space as a Transport Minister. He seemed to
regard the job purely as an offshoot of the Treasury, hence his
despicable welshing on the Trafalgar House scheme to scrap the Dartford
Crossing tolls.

Using him as a source does you no good at all.

When and if I am ever driven off the road by old age (and that only if I
am lucky enough to reach it), you might or might not be proven right.
Let's hope that infirmity can be fended off for a while yet.

Update: Doing a bit of digging the per-mile risks of drivers have been
around a while, the Times reported that : "Department of Transport
statistics show that drivers over the age of 80 have more accidents
per mile than any other age group."" (BBC Radio 4)

What has that to do with me?

Look ahead, so you can react in time..





and your motorists-can-do-little-wrong bias (and JNugent-is-
even-better-than-other-motorists) prevents you from being much use.

My experience in never having hit an open or opened car door is matched
to perfection by that of millions of other drivers and is in no way to
be seen as out of the ordinary.
That is a point which I and others have been making some efforts to
point out over several postings. You seem unable to fathom th simple
facts of the matter.

The "simple fact" is that you understand and accept that drivers are
likely to be surprised by a pedestrian coming off the pavement in
front of them and not be able to react in time, and are prepared to
excuse them. Yet somehow a cyclist is to blame if he cannot react in
time to a flung-open car door.

That's because he *can* react in time if he looks where he's going,
instead of at his crutch and knees and the bit of road under the front
wheel. The fact that drivers can invariably react in time - and at and
from higher speeds - proves that much.

Drivers invariably react in time? Then what kills the pedestrians?


Still, I am not surprised that you have not hit a pedestrian. You can
swerve very quickly.

I have hit a pedestrian who emerged from behind a parked van carrying a
pile of large boxes in his arms. Luckily for him, I was driving at an
appropriate speed for the conditions, and keeping an adequate watch for
just such an occurrence. I was able to slow even more, meaning that he
was, fortunately, not injured. We both had a fright though.

BTW: "Motorists" (I assume you mean drivers) certainly can do wrong. But
hitting opened car doors is not something they do very often (and
whether wrongly or not).
Nor do cyclists, I think. Or do you have statistics?

Now then...

It's make-your-mind-up time, isn't it?

*Is* "dooring" a common problem or isn't it?

It can't be a common problem and not be a common problem, can it?

Squashme wrote:
On May 6, 7:37 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2013 00:30, Squashme wrote:
On May 5, 7:55 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 05/05/2013 15:43, Squashme wrote:

On May 4, 10:03 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 04/05/2013 21:52, Squashme wrote:

On May 4, 3:46 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 04/05/2013 11:40, Squashme wrote:

On May 3, 8:46 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2013 20:34, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote:

On 03/05/2013 11:53, CJB wrote:
Labour MP Margaret Hodge accused of flooring cyclist with
her car door while talking on mobile phone
Cyclist clearly failing to use observation, anticipation &
hazard awareness skills.
He should have been charged with criminal damage to the car
door.

It *is* odd that cyclists expect sufficient clearance when
being overtaken that they can perform a deviation in course
as wide as they choose (the "wobble") and still not be hit
even when they suddenly veer into the path of overtaking
traffic, whilst on the other hand, they (or some of them at
least) cannot be trusted to do a simple thing like stay a
few feet away from the offside of a stationary passenger
vehicle where disgorging of its occupants (with always at
least one alighting from the offside) is easily prdictable
and whose occupants can actually be seen (by those who can
be bothered to look).

I typically travel along highways faster than a cyclist
would and could therefore claim that I need even more
notice of a vehicle door being opened in my path, yet in
probably something approaching a half million miles of
driving in urban areas, I have never even come close to
hitting a vehicle's opening or opened door, or an emerging
vehicle occupant.

It's a mystery that motorists manage to see cars, isn't it?

This issue is nothing to do with "motorists"

Oh, I see. It's the cyclists who open the doors is it?

It is (some) cyclists who fail to see the doors, possibly - nay,
probably - because they are not looking far enough ahead.

It is (some) motorists who fail to see the cyclists, possibly -
nay, probably - because they are not looking behind at all.

The cyclists do not bring the doors with them. The motorists are
surely not opening their doors expecting that they don't have to
look behind, or are they?

I've never even come close to hitting a door opened in front of
me. And that's in something in the order, over more than four
decades, of about a half-million urban miles. I'm not counting
extra-urban distance at all. If I can achieve such a record (and
it's nothing the slightest bit
unusual), why can't you, or any other cyclist?

And how many suddenly opened doors is that?

Lost count.

But I have never hit one, for a variety of different reasons in a
variety of different road conditions.

Sometimes, it's because I have stopped and *waited*. More cyclists
ought to try that one. It works well in preventing collisions in all
sorts of traffic situations.

But they might lose their momentum, and if they are clipped to their
pedals they may fall off.

It's quite fun to see how long one can balance without much forward
movement.

probably much harder if you have stopped rapidly because of an obstruction,
rather than coming to a pre-planned rest.

On 06/05/2013 22:47, Squashme wrote:
On May 6, 5:13 pm, JNugent wrote:

Dear Squashme

This is how you snip a post. Please try to learn.


was, fortunately, not injured. We both had a fright though.

BTW: "Motorists" (I assume you mean drivers) certainly can do wrong. But
hitting opened car doors is not something they do very often (and
whether wrongly or not).
Nor do cyclists, I think. Or do you have statistics?

Now then...

It's make-your-mind-up time, isn't it?

*Is* "dooring" a common problem or isn't it?

It can't be a common problem and not be a common problem, can it?



Who said that it was a common problem? You?

Doug.


--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £45 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Only £8 billion of this is spent on roads.
Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?

A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use
roads and the benefit given to those who don’t.

On 06/05/2013 22:46, Squashme wrote:
On May 6, 10:04 pm, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

Snipping again.


Did you make emergency stops?
Did you take split-second evasive action?

I suspect Mr N simply used his observation, anticipation & hazard
awareness skills.

--

That's why drivers never kill pedestrians, is it?

All together now-

ALL. What, never?
DAVE. No, never!
ALL. What, never?
DAVE. Hardly ever!

In 2011 there were 41 casualties per 100 million kilometres traveled.
Not deaths, casualties. Not all the drivers fault.

An incredibly good safety record.

Sorry the facts don't support your fantasy.


So you are saying that drivers don't kill pedestrians, and if
pedestrians do die it is their own fault.

I'm saying that the figures prove beyond doubt that driving is
incredibly safe.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £45 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Only £8 billion of this is spent on roads.
Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?

A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use
roads and the benefit given to those who don’t.

On 06/05/2013 22:52, Squashme wrote:
On May 6, 7:37 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Snippy snip snip.


But they might lose their momentum, and if they are clipped to their pedals
they may fall off.

It's quite fun to see how long one can balance without much forward
movement.

Even funnier when the idiot cyclist falls off :-)


--
Dave - Cyclists VORC
Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow
out of.
There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want
to ride a bike."

On 06/05/2013 22:50, Squashme wrote:

On May 6, 5:13 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2013 16:16, Squashme wrote:

[ ... ]

The "simple fact" is that you understand and accept that drivers are
likely to be surprised by a pedestrian coming off the pavement in
front of them and not be able to react in time, and are prepared to
excuse them. Yet somehow a cyclist is to blame if he cannot react in
time to a flung-open car door.

That's because he *can* react in time if he looks where he's going,
instead of at his crutch and knees and the bit of road under the front
wheel. The fact that drivers can invariably react in time - and at and
from higher speeds - proves that much.

Where do you get this fantasy of crutch-regarding cyclists? Certainly
I have little interest in my own while cycling. Unless I have had to
stop very very suddenly.

No fantasy: reality. Look at any of Captain Trollbuster's helmett-cam
videos.

Think of any of the road-rac... sorry... time-trial incidents, where
cyclists have hit something because they just weren't looking where they
were going and/or not proceeding at a speed from which they could stop
within the space they could see to be clear or as quickly as the vehicle
they were following.

On May 7, 6:20*pm, Dave-Cyclists VORT
wrote:
On 06/05/2013 22:46, Squashme wrote:

On May 6, 10:04 pm, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

Snipping again.











Did you make emergency stops?
Did you take split-second evasive action?

I suspect Mr N simply used his observation, anticipation & hazard
awareness skills.

--

That's why drivers never kill pedestrians, is it?

All together now-

ALL. What, never?
DAVE. No, never!
ALL. What, never?
DAVE. Hardly ever!

In 2011 there were 41 casualties per 100 million kilometres traveled.
Not deaths, casualties. Not all the drivers fault.

An incredibly good safety record.

Sorry the facts don't support your fantasy.

So you are saying that drivers don't kill pedestrians, and if
pedestrians do die it is their own fault.

I'm saying that the figures prove beyond doubt that driving is
incredibly safe.

--

Certainly is for the occupants of vehicles. Rather less so for their
victims.

On May 7, 6:21*pm, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:
On 06/05/2013 22:52, Squashme wrote:

On May 6, 7:37 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Snippy snip snip.



But they might lose their momentum, and if they are clipped to their pedals
they may fall off.

It's quite fun to see how long one can balance without much forward
movement.

Even funnier when the idiot cyclist falls off :-)


Or when a motorist trips over the curb, eh?

On May 7, 6:17*pm, Dave-Cyclists VORT
wrote:
On 06/05/2013 22:47, Squashme wrote:

On May 6, 5:13 pm, JNugent wrote:

Dear Squashme

This is how you snip a post. *Please try to learn.









was, fortunately, not injured. We both had a fright though.

BTW: "Motorists" (I assume you mean drivers) certainly can do wrong. But
hitting opened car doors is not something they do very often (and
whether wrongly or not).
Nor do cyclists, I think. Or do you have statistics?

Now then...

It's make-your-mind-up time, isn't it?

*Is* "dooring" a common problem or isn't it?

It can't be a common problem and not be a common problem, can it?

Who said that it was a common problem? You?

Doug.


Not me then.