Motorbike Filtering

In ,
Graz tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:00:39 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
Graz tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.

You'd better get yourself some new glasses (preferably not of the
rose-tinted variety), before you cause a serious accident.

Logic failure, lycraboi.

I am beginning to suspect that you're actually a refined version of the
****-O-Tron:

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougo...e-****-o-tron/

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
a yo-yo" - Enoch Root.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:57:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:01:44 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:21:31 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:59:37 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:12:07 GMT, (Graz) wrote:


Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
sense.

I have a perfectly acceptable life thank you, and I am no more faggot
than *******.

So what's your excuse for being a cyclist?

Not excuse, reason. For excercise (sic).

You can't even spell the ****ing word.

Oops! Apologies. Nice to know you can spell though.

I also know what a red light means.

Do you get any? (apart from your
right hand that is).

Apparently, bicycle saddles cause impotence by pressing on vital
parts. Using your right hand may be all you'll be able to do in a few
years. If not already.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes.
Very helpful.

My 2 kids would appear to be evidence
to the contrary.

What makes you think they're yours?

And you're the one telling me to get a life.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:43:29 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:57:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:01:44 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:21:31 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:59:37 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:12:07 GMT, (Graz) wrote:


Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
sense.

I have a perfectly acceptable life thank you, and I am no more faggot
than *******.

So what's your excuse for being a cyclist?

Not excuse, reason. For excercise (sic).

You can't even spell the ****ing word.

Oops! Apologies. Nice to know you can spell though.

I also know what a red light means.

Do you get any? (apart from your
right hand that is).

Apparently, bicycle saddles cause impotence by pressing on vital
parts. Using your right hand may be all you'll be able to do in a few
years. If not already.

Do you have a source for that?

Yes.
Very helpful.

You're welcome!

My 2 kids would appear to be evidence
to the contrary.

What makes you think they're yours?

And you're the one telling me to get a life.

That's right. The sooner the better.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:24:27 -0000, "AndyC"
wrote:


"Graz" wrote in message
...

Where did you get this ridiculous idea that cyclists deserve any kind
of courtesy?

I guess it is because rather than thinking that cagers are nasty,
vindictive
and discourteous, I prefer to think that they just don't understand.

So-called "cagers" do understand that cyclists totally disregard the
rules of the road, and for that reason deserve no courtesy whatsoever.

I tend to think we should be courteous to all other road users, whether they
disregard the rules of the road or not. We should not sink to their level.

I tend to think otherwise.

The whole concept of "regard for the rules of the road" is an interesting
one though because it is subjective and varies from person to person
depending on their own POV. Many cyclists seem to think it to be OK to ride
on the pavement, overtake on the left, and jump red lights. Many cagers seem
to think it is OK to exceed the speed limit, overtake to close, or drive too
close behind, and err... jump red lights. At the same time they will be
bellowing at someone else who is doing something which they don't like.

Ho hum...

The difference being that in the case of cyclists it's the majority.

"AndyC" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

Are you excusing drivers from having to look ? Of course, any road user
should be constantly checking around them, but you can't just go by what
you 'expect', particularly before making any changing direction or lane.
If a driver is in a stationary or slow moving line of traffic (which is
where cyclists are more likely to be passing on the left) they should be
'expected' to look

I am not excusing them, drivers just *don't* look. Maybe they *should* be
expected to look but since they habitually don't, then I will not take the
chance that they will and have done.

Van drivers and HGVs won't see you there.

Ditto - I'm not referring here to cases where a cyclist attempts to pass
a left indicating vehicle. That is a case where the cyclist has put
him/herself in danger.

Van and HGV drivers cannot see to the side due to a lack of windows in the
vehicle. If you want to rely on a driver checking their mirrors and be
certain that they checked well and that there were no blind spots, that's
up to you. I don't. I habitually check over the shoulder, even when
driving a car, who else does? Not many cagers do, its a biker thing. And
do they always indicate? Nah!...

That you will be hidden from oncoming traffic turning right.

Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware
of that risk when approaching junctions on the left where drivers have
left a gap for oncoming traffic to turn into it. I'm not saying that
cyclists switch their brains off too.

That's "one of the problems"...

That traffic pulling out of a side road on the left will probably not
see you or give way to you (or may just ram you into the side of the
vehicle you are passing),

Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware
of that risk when approaching junctions on the left. I'm not saying that
cyclists switch their brains off too. In this case of course, the prime
responsibility is on the driver pulling out to actually look rather than
just going by what they 'expect'.

Must disagree. The prime responsibility for my own safety rests with me.
Drivers are often in a hurry, they are sometimes angry because of traffic
delaying them. This leads to carelessness on their part. That can lead to
a SMIDSY.

So you would say to any incompetent driver "Sorry mate, I wasn't riding
defensively enough, sorry to have got under your wheels"?
I agree that cyclists must be aware as the come up to such junctions and
should match their speed to the space available for stopping - that is why 2
of the 3 sentences in my response are along those lines.

Aside from that, I would suggest that a cyclist on the right is more at risk
from an unsighted motorist turning right out of a junction on the left as
the motorist and cyclist will be obstructed from each others view by the
line of traffic in between.


and that passengers of stationary cars sometimes throw the doors open.
Other than that, no problem at all, really.

Again, this is a problem with car users not looking. Get motorists used
to the idea of cyclists and they will know to look.

Problem here is not so much the driver, but the passenger, who may well
not be a driver at all and may possibly be a child who just throws open
the car door. I teach my own kids about checking carefully before openning
(and shutting) car doors. How many other parents do? Parents often don't
think that much. Kids don't think that much. Non-driving passengers often
don't think that much. If you want to teach the world to be more safety
concious then great. Personally I just want to reduce the risk of injury
to myself and those around me.

Many cyclists prefer to make a left side pass because it works well with
stop-start traffic (as in my post that kicked off this bit of the
discussion), and does not result in a cyclist being 'stranded' on the
right with fast moving traffic overtaking them on their left and
preventing them from merging into the stream of traffic.

I disagree. Stop-start traffic is better filtered on the right. It's
unlikely that you will ever get "stranded in the middle" unless you are
trying to overtake a long queue and the speed is too fast. When filtering,
you need to overtake one vehicle at a time, making sure there are gaps and
that you are able to merge back in again.

The original sub-thread was about a cyclist being obstructed when a long
queue (60 yards) was developing coming up to red traffic lights. Gaps close
up and there is a strong likelihood of getting stranded.

Given the evidence of some posts here I would not rely on motorists making
any allowance to cyclists whatsoever - and a good chance that at least some
will deliberately drive illegally in order to dissuade cyclists from using
the road at all. I'm sure that you as a biker will familiar with some
drivers pulling right to prevent you from 'sneaking up on the outside'. No
doubt, the same will apply to cyclists too.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:43:12 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


"AndyC" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

There's no problem with passing on the left

Apart from the fact that drivers do not expect you to be there.

Are you excusing drivers from having to look ? Of course, any road user
should be constantly checking around them, but you can't just go by what you
'expect', particularly before making any changing direction or lane. If a
driver is in a stationary or slow moving line of traffic (which is where
cyclists are more likely to be passing on the left) they should be
'expected' to look


This appears to be really difficult for you - you really seem to be
struggling. Here is some advice.

Many motorists will probably not see you as you undercut them on the
left.

Most will see you as you overtake on the right - where they expect you
to do so.

Many cyclists are knocked off their bikes and seriously injured or
killed when undercutting vehicles on their left.

Undercutting vehicles on the left is dangerous.

Don't do it.

(Are you another who thinks that the HC "endorses filtering"?)


--

The Highway Code endorses filtering - Ian Smith
(He just can't find where it does so.)

On Feb 11, 10:13*pm, (Graz) wrote:

Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
ignorant liar.

The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon. *
I bet you read the Socialist Worker.

So no then to reading the Daily Wail. You're an ignorant liar from
London who we know see is also a right wing fascist. The more you type
the more amazed I am with your ability to drag your knuckles off the
floor to reach the keyboard. Of course you can't see the other
cyclists, that heavy set scowling forehead of yours severely limits
your field of vision.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:39:24 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
Steve Firth tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

I drive though Chiswick, S/Bush and Camden most days. I've never seen
a cyclist stop for the lights. Indeed most don't even seem to notice
that they are there.

What is this, a People Who Need New Glasses Convention?

If it is, it's you *******s who need them. I can see a red light 200
yards away. You can't even see one when you're in front of one.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:40:27 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
Graz tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:00:39 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
Graz tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.

You'd better get yourself some new glasses (preferably not of the
rose-tinted variety), before you cause a serious accident.

Logic failure, lycraboi.

I am beginning to suspect that you're actually a refined version of the
****-O-Tron:

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougo...e-****-o-tron/

I have always suspected that you're a ****head, lycraboi.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:56:03 -0800 (PST), Marz
wrote:

On Feb 11, 10:13=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:

Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
ignorant liar.

The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon. =A0
I bet you read the Socialist Worker.

So no then to reading the Daily Wail. You're an ignorant liar from
London who we know (sic) see is also a right wing fascist.

Ah, we now see you're illiterate as well as being a cretinous cyclist.

The more you type
the more amazed I am with your ability to drag your knuckles off the
floor to reach the keyboard.

And this from someone who writes "know" for "now". LOL

Of course you can't see the other
cyclists, that heavy set scowling forehead of yours severely limits
your field of vision.

You only have one eyebrow, don't you? A unibrow, I believe it's
called.