|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
'Hog wrote:
Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. That said the biker failed the second test. Keep your ****ing mouth shut. What didn't get mentioned was the ~30% of accidents, where blame accrues to a truck or HGV, being a LHD vehicle. Wouldn't want to set a legal precedent forcing a change of tractor units at ports. The point about being near the middle to improve visibility would be great if the biker had been able to use the extra view and react in time, the fact that he couldn't do so upon seeing a GBFO lorry indicates that he was actually going too fast for the circumstances. There are many times that vehicles are over the line for any number of reasons and a quality road user knows that and allows for it to be a possibility, same way that there might be a tractor, a crash or a herd of cows 'just around the corner' |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
Mrcheerful wrote:
'Hog wrote: Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. That said the biker failed the second test. Keep your ****ing mouth shut. What didn't get mentioned was the ~30% of accidents, where blame accrues to a truck or HGV, being a LHD vehicle. Wouldn't want to set a legal precedent forcing a change of tractor units at ports. The point about being near the middle to improve visibility would be great if the biker had been able to use the extra view and react in time, the fact that he couldn't do so upon seeing a GBFO lorry indicates that he was actually going too fast for the circumstances. There are many times that vehicles are over the line for any number of reasons and a quality road user knows that and allows for it to be a possibility, same way that there might be a tractor, a crash or a herd of cows 'just around the corner' We don't know if he was going "too fast", simply that he didn't have time or room to manouver (position). I'm sure many of us have often taken the same line and survived unscathed. -- Hog Remember the 4 "F" rule: If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me ....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
'Hog wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote: 'Hog wrote: Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. That said the biker failed the second test. Keep your ****ing mouth shut. What didn't get mentioned was the ~30% of accidents, where blame accrues to a truck or HGV, being a LHD vehicle. Wouldn't want to set a legal precedent forcing a change of tractor units at ports. The point about being near the middle to improve visibility would be great if the biker had been able to use the extra view and react in time, the fact that he couldn't do so upon seeing a GBFO lorry indicates that he was actually going too fast for the circumstances. There are many times that vehicles are over the line for any number of reasons and a quality road user knows that and allows for it to be a possibility, same way that there might be a tractor, a crash or a herd of cows 'just around the corner' We don't know if he was going "too fast", simply that he didn't have time or room to manouver (position). Then he was going too fast for the conditions / his skills or both |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
'Hog wrote:
Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. Just how much room do you have to give someone on your side of the road before it's considered wrong for them to smash you into such a state that you lose a limb? I was under the impression that you give way to oncoming traffic if you need to encroach onto their side of the road and failure to do so puts you in the wrong. I'd say that the ****ing beak was so far from the mark that he needs removing from not only his job but the face of the earth. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
On May 28, 5:46*pm, Pip wrote:
In article , Thomas says... On Mon, 28 May 2012 06:08:17 -0700, Phil W Lee wrote: Squashme considered Sun, 27 May 2012 10:30:51 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: Anybody know this road? Not much detail, but if visibility is good in both directions, does any blame attach to the motorcyclist? I believe I've used it in the past, having checked on Google Earth and viewed the junction on Streetview. As a (former) motorcyclist and cyclist, I would say that legal speeds on that road would be rare among motorcyclists (even those on Harleys), and judgment of the speed of an approaching motorcyclist is quite likely to be sub-optimal in a 73 y.o of any transport type or gender. So without additional information, it seems likely that there was some fault on both sides. Really? When the sign clearly says "GIVE WAY" and there's no evidence the motorcycle was speeding? It is *always* the fault of the motorcyclist. *Look at the case of the motorcyclist who was taking a bend to the left, positioned in about the same place as the driver of a car would be. *A Lithuanian truck driver crossed the white line and hit him, causing injuries severe enough for his right leg to be amputated. On appeal, the truck driver's QC argued that the motorcyclist could have been safe if he had been riding in the centre of his lane, rather than out by the white line. But there's 'out by the white line' and 'on the white line'. I'm always between 66.6% and 75 % of the way over to the right of my lane, any less and it's fair game for some goon behind you to push past in slow traffic. On the white line, you're fair game for just about any homicidal **** coming down in the other direction. Though in fairness, it's usually Merc, BMW or WVM, who apparently need more road than most. Paul. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
On 28/05/2012 23:25, Phil W Lee wrote:
: Phil W Lee says: http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...ed-hospital-bi... Anybody know this road? Not much detail, but if visibility is good in both directions, does any blame attach to the motorcyclist? I believe I've used it in the past, having checked on Google Earth and viewed the junction on Streetview. As a (former) motorcyclist and cyclist, I would say that legal speeds on that road would be rare among motorcyclists (even those on Harleys), So without any evidence what so ever the motorcycle is now speeding, basically you don't know that. Balance of probabilities. and judgment of the speed of an approaching motorcyclist is quite likely to be sub-optimal in a 73 y.o of any transport type or gender. And old people are stupid, again you've no evidence. Who said stupid? Oh yes, that would be you. So without additional information, it seems likely that there was some fault on both sides. All we know is that traffic on the minor road pulled into the path of traffic on the major road, crossing a give way sign. In the absence of other evidence about the behaviour of either party initially it would seem the blame lies with the cyclist. However, until the police have investigated basically none of us know. Err, you did read the bit about "without additional information" didn't you? Oh yes... that was the bit where you blamed the victim and said that "without additional information" "it seem[ed] likely that" it was *his* fault as well as being the fault of the cyclist(s) who pulled out across a give-way line into his path. Then, when that "argument" was fully demolished by the next poster, you just asked him a silly question as though asking it were some sort of triumph. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote: Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. Just how much room do you have to give someone on your side of the road before it's considered wrong for them to smash you into such a state that you lose a limb? I was under the impression that you give way to oncoming traffic if you need to encroach onto their side of the road and failure to do so puts you in the wrong. I'd say that the ****ing beak was so far from the mark that he needs removing from not only his job but the face of the earth. sounds like the lorry was not travelling very fast and the bike was, which gave rise to enough of a collision to mess the leg up. Years ago I heard of a biker that lost a foot in a collision on the road to Canvey Island, the bikes used to use it as a race strip at night and one night two just clipped each other at vast speed in opposite directions, the foot was caught in the engine bars. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:46:45 +0100, Pip wrote:
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-...urt-overturns- riders-crash-compensation/20647.html I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Re the lorry. It appears that the "cab of a lorry was slightly over the white line and the front offside wheel was found to be on the white line". We don't know how narrow the road was, how tight the bend was or how fast the lorry was going. So ATM I see no reason to assume the lorry driver was in any way negligent. The biker. The safest way to ride is in the middle of your lane at a speed within which you can stop before hitting a hazard. The idea of moving out to the centre is so you can see further and start to stop sooner if required. If the biker was going so fast he couldn't even get himself back into the centre of his lane, where it seems he would have been safe, before reaching the lorry then it seems to me that he was mostly to blame for the accident. Some conjecture there, but IMHO no more than by those who mostly blame the lorry driver. -- Colin Irvine ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5 http://www.colinandpat.co.uk |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote: Pip wrote: I'd expect you to ride (in the UK) on the same line that I would - on a left hander, out by the line for maximum visibility around the bend and on a right hander, near enough in the gutter for maximum forward view. It's OK if you're a trucker, though, as you can now legally swerve all over the road, skittling other road users left and right as it is just too onerous to stay on the correct side of the road. Did you read up on the circumstances? The Beak didn't seem to be far off the mark, unless we think all narrow roads with blind bends should be closed to large traffic. It was wheels across the white line because the road was narrow and the truck was not moving rapidly. Just how much room do you have to give someone on your side of the road before it's considered wrong for them to smash you into such a state that you lose a limb? I was under the impression that you give way to oncoming traffic if you need to encroach onto their side of the road and failure to do so puts you in the wrong. I'd say that the ****ing beak was so far from the mark that he needs removing from not only his job but the face of the earth. So what should a truck do every time it encounters a blind bend that's too narrow for the wheel track? get a man with a red flag to walk round ahead? I'm not being contrary, I simply bothered to read the detailed circumstances of the case as everyone and their dog was claiming to have written to MP's etc. Having driven a 7.5t Cargo around the narrow A and single track B roads (of Scotland) I suggest on such roads everyone proceeds with caution and the occasional beep of the horn. -- Hog Remember the 4 "F" rule: If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me ....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
safety in numbers? Fail
Colin Irvine wrote:
Re the lorry. It appears that the "cab of a lorry was slightly over the white line and the front offside wheel was found to be on the white line". We don't know how narrow the road was, how tight the bend was or how fast the lorry was going. So ATM I see no reason to assume the lorry driver was in any way negligent. Actually we do if you track down the trial notes, and the revised decision was made by two senior judges. If the rider had kept his mouth shut there probably wouldn't have been an appeal but at the initial hearing he admitted to going in on a "committed line" which didn't leave room for error or oncoming traffic, on a narrow road round a bend with restricted visibility. The truck driver was found to have been proceeding with reasonable care, the white line is advisory and can be crossed depending on circumstances. So basically all this BMF writing to the DoT etc is ****ing in the wind. The real problem is LHD truck cabs. The accident stats make a pretty good case for taking them off UK roads. Of course that would stop UK trucks from driving on the Continent I suppose. GAF. -- Hog Remember the 4 "F" rule: If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me ....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Safety In numbers | Judith[_4_] | UK | 10 | May 6th 12 09:09 PM |
More safety in numbers? | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 1 | April 28th 12 03:29 PM |
safety in numbers | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 1 | June 25th 09 05:32 AM |
Safety in Numbers | Roos Eisma | UK | 249 | September 17th 08 09:20 AM |
Safety in Numbers. | Simon Mason | UK | 11 | April 23rd 05 09:34 PM |