safety in numbers? Fail

On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:59:40 +0100, (Andy B)
wrote:

'Hog wrote:

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.

Try slowing down to a point where they can either stay on their side of
the road or at least be able to see someone coming towards them and then
stop until they'd passed.

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.

Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming
traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That doesn't
work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on the correct
side of the road and expected the same from other road users.

No rule of the road is completely sacrosanct. It's obvious that,
overall, the lorry driver was driving more sensibly than the biker. To
apportion the majority of the blame to the lorry driver is therefore
clearly wrong, and that is the conclusion that the court, in full
possesion of the facts, eventually came to.

--
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

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.

Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming
traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That
doesn't work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on
the correct side of the road and expected the same from other road
users.

Like I said, you are making a case to close narrow roads to heavy
traffic. It's never going to fly. The white line is advisory and
everyone has to proceed with "due care", which includes making
allowances for narrow roads and other traffic. You do it, I do it,
most people do it, most of the time. The point was also made we
can't be held to a standard of perfection, there would be no road
users left.

Narrow roads should be closed to vehicles that can't use them in a
safe manner.

I expect www.rha.uk.net/ and the public bus companies think their job is
more important.

Where did you read that white lines are advisory? Cite evidence
please.

The road design engineer I was asking about it.

If I was over a white line and got skittled I wouldn't even try to
blame someone else. Is this what you mean when you say that I do it?

We all at times proceed without due consideration of all possible
consequences.

Perfection? No. Culpability? Yes.

The truck driver was not found to be without blame. The Court retrenched to
shared blame. I already commented the rider failed the second test.

Substitute "local school bus full of kids" for smelly furriner and
the Beaks might have been less charitable at the first court hearing.
IYSWIM.

That shouldn't make any difference.

You and I would probably agree the poor sod with the missing leg
should have retained the financial support but one can also see
where the opposing Council and the Ins Co are coming from.

I can see where the insurance company are coming from because they're
all cheating, thieving ****s, I fail to see where the opposing council
comes from and I fail to see why the driver is still going to be
allowed to drive over here when he obviously isn't capable of staying
on the correct side of the road or waiting until approaching traffic
has gone past.

The driver couldn't see right through the bend. Had he stopped the rider
would still have hit him.

You're trolling **** and simply because of that I'll never stop
laughing if you or someone close to you suffers in the same way as the
bike rider. Unhappy about that? Bad luck.

It's not trolling at all. I read the trial notes and I'm trying to get a
handle on the public reaction which doesn't seem to reflect the facts.
Your strange comment only says something about you, nothing about me.

--
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

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.

So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory
training for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?

Most road users pay for the privilege of using the road. He who pays
comes first. Those who don't go to the end of the queue. Long past
time the RTA was updated.

See my previous comment about your trolling. By your reckoning your
child could be left in a wheelchair by a ****ed up driver as long as
he'd paid his dues to be on the road so be careful what you wish for.

By the time a bit of humour and **** taking between uk.rec.cycling and
uk.rec.motorcycles goes out of fashion the world will have run out of
silicon. Hopefully. Particularly, bearing in the fairly widespread cross
party participation on 2 wheelie things.

Not that there isn't a grain of truth in my comment, I do think paying road
users should take priority. Pedestrians not included, obviously. Though
jaywalking laws would have their place.

--
Hog

Colin Irvine wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:59:40 +0100, (Andy B)
wrote:

'Hog wrote:

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.

Try slowing down to a point where they can either stay on their side
of the road or at least be able to see someone coming towards them
and then stop until they'd passed.

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.

Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming
traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That
doesn't work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on
the correct side of the road and expected the same from other road
users.

No rule of the road is completely sacrosanct. It's obvious that,
overall, the lorry driver was driving more sensibly than the biker. To
apportion the majority of the blame to the lorry driver is therefore
clearly wrong, and that is the conclusion that the court, in full
possesion of the facts, eventually came to.

Finding out the actual facts of the case and reading the appeal verdict was
rather my point. The internet was buzzing and letters from concerned
citizens were being sent, presumably from people who only read the content
of a few special interest forums.
The truck driver had nowhere to go and no room to manouver. It didn't make
him blameless, only not entirely culpable.

As it happens I did just the same on the A760 years ago. Tight narrow bend.
I went in a bit hot. Other vehicle wasn't over the white line but on it
IYSWIM. She reacted instinctively by moving outwards. I reacted instictively
by laying the bike down, which went under her car but I slid into the gap
she created on her nearside. Nothing more than bruises.
I did it a second time on a Milk Race tour, K100RT, going against the
peloton to meet the camera chopper. Met a Wincanton 40 tonner, trailer had
to cut the corner, again he twitched to his offside and I managed to put it
all up his inside, sunnyside up, into the bushes. Almost no damage once I'd
snapped the mirror pods back on.

--
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

Phil W Lee wrote:
"'Hog" considered Tue, 29 May 2012

By the time a bit of humour and **** taking between uk.rec.cycling
and uk.rec.motorcycles goes out of fashion the world will have run
out of silicon. Hopefully. Particularly, bearing in the fairly
widespread cross party participation on 2 wheelie things.

Not that there isn't a grain of truth in my comment, I do think
paying road users should take priority. Pedestrians not included,
obviously. Though jaywalking laws would have their place.

Any road user operating under a permit or licence should ALWAYS give
way to those who use the road by right.

That is why there is no such thing as jaywalking.

If you don't like it, tough.
Nobody is forcing you to use a motor vehicle.

I was suggesting the legal construct is wrong (IMHO) and personally I'd like
to see it changed. I'm not arguing about current road traffic law.

--
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

Phil W Lee wrote:
"'Hog" considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:41:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Most road users pay for the privilege of using the road. He who pays
comes first. Those who don't go to the end of the queue. Long past
time the RTA was updated.

Is the wrong answer.
He who has the right comes first, he who does not have the right can
be made to pay, and comes last.

Where do you think all those roads came from?

Your question does not have an obvious target?
It only matters who paid for them. The VED victims, paid several times over.

Let me turn it around another way. Leave things as they are and scrap VED
and fuel duty.

--
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

On 30/05/12 4:55 AM, Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 03:06:30 -0700, 'Hog
wrote:

The real problem is LHD truck cabs. The accident stats make a pretty good
case for taking them off UK roads.

Trucks AND cars, ffs. They're all LHD here, and even though the lanes
are ridiculously wide, it seems no one can stay inside them.

Last time I was in the states an F250 was a normal sized car. A
Landcruiser was virtually a compact car. I remember driving through LA
doorhandle to doorhandle, sitting on the wrong side of the car, at
90mph, in the ****ing rain with no idea where I was going. It was the
only time I have been worried in a car.

--

Fraser

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

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.

Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming
traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That
doesn't work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on
the correct side of the road and expected the same from other road
users.

Like I said, you are making a case to close narrow roads to heavy
traffic. It's never going to fly. The white line is advisory and
everyone has to proceed with "due care", which includes making
allowances for narrow roads and other traffic. You do it, I do it,
most people do it, most of the time. The point was also made we
can't be held to a standard of perfection, there would be no road
users left.

Narrow roads should be closed to vehicles that can't use them in a
safe manner.

Where did you read that white lines are advisory? Cite evidence
please.

If I was over a white line and got skittled I wouldn't even try to
blame someone else. Is this what you mean when you say that I do it?


was it a solid white line or a centre line?

Phil W Lee wrote:
"'Hog" considered Wed, 30 May 2012
01:23:47 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
"'Hog" considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:41:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Most road users pay for the privilege of using the road. He who
pays comes first. Those who don't go to the end of the queue. Long
past time the RTA was updated.

Is the wrong answer.
He who has the right comes first, he who does not have the right can
be made to pay, and comes last.

Where do you think all those roads came from?

Your question does not have an obvious target?
It only matters who paid for them. The VED victims, paid several
times over.

To the tune of less than half of the cost imposed on society by their
motor vehicle use.

Let me turn it around another way. Leave things as they are and
scrap VED and fuel duty.

Hell no - put them up so they pay the full cost of the damage they
cause.

Ah so you are Amish. Very good. Carry on.

--
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

Phil W Lee wrote:
"'Hog" considered Tue, 29 May 2012

While at it, save the A&E some trouble and make crash helmets
compulsory as per motorcycles.

If you really want to save the A&E some trouble, ban the motorcycles,
although the transplant surgeons may find that restricting -note
vbg
Foam hats only discourage cycling, so promotion of them should be made
a criminal offence (well, in some ways it already is, as nearly all
claims made for them are misleading at best, and outright lies at
worst).

If you really want an improvement, require a graduation through each
type of vehicle before qualifying for the provisional licence for a
larger or more powerful one.

So you start by cycling, and if you never want to use any motor
vehicle, that's fine - it is a right, and you can keep doing it for as
long as you like.
But if you want to drive something heavier, more powerful, and more
dangerous to the more vulnerable road using public, you first have to
pass a test (on the bi/tricycle) to show you understand basic traffic
law and can ride safely within it - that would get you a provisional
moped licence.
Rinse and repeat for small motorcycle, standard motorcycle, small car,
large car, van, commercial (up to 7.5T), class 3 LGV, class 2 LGV,
class 1 LGV, STGO loads.
Branch off at van for minibus, then PCV.
Probably a few additional branches for things like professional use
(driving as a substantial part of employment), supercars (above a
specified power to weight ratio), superbikes (ditto), sidecar outfits,
trailers, or hazardous loads.
Each full licence acting as a provisional for the size (or sizes, if
it's a branch point) above, after a one year qualification period.

There would need to be some kind of "leg-up" or exemption, for those
with a genuine disability, but it should not be given lightly (for
example, balance problems would not qualify, as trike versions are
perfectly acceptable substitutes for all two-wheeled classes), and
some form of test would be required to demonstrate an understanding of
the needs of whatever classes the applicant had been exempted from.

Enforcement could be improved, as points accumulation could result in
"knocking back" to a smaller class, rather than an outright ban,
removing the "exceptional hardship" excuse that so many use to avoid a
ban (we might see a few highly paid professionals in fiestas or on
mopeds, but they couldn't claim it prevented them working).

I can't see any good reason why this wouldn't work, and even less
reason why a motorcyclist wouldn't support it wholeheartedly.

I can see that some Clarksons might object, but they are after all
part of the problem we are trying to fix.

I started with a cycling proficiency certificate and a tufty club badge and
had a bike licence for 8 years before cars/trucks, so ya boo sucks.

--
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