Cyclist scratching car

#41

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"Clive George" <clive (AT) xxxx-x (DOT) fsnet.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Nothing. Just like if a pedestrian does it and walks off, or a
motor-driver does it and drives off, or a llama-rider does it and
rides off.

Not quite. One of those situations would allow you to make a note of a
nice large, prominently displayed unique identification number and
inform your insurance, who can then trace that particular Llama.

You've been hanging around urc long enough to know that Ian has
experience of this, except in this case it wasn't a little scratch he
had, but rather more serious. And no, the large unique identification
number didn't help one bit.

I don't "hang around" urc at all - but I think I am aware of the incident
you refer to, although I hadn't clocked it was the same poster. But,
anyway, that large unique identification number certainly DID help, as
otherwise the Llama in question would not have been traceable to begin
the ensuing arguments about liability with.

It wasn't arguments about liability, it was tracing the thing in the first
place. Hit and run, not insured, false registration details.

#42

Mike P <mike_w_pearson (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk> writes:

Quote:

I appreciate the gesture, but honestly I'd far prefer to have the space
on the offside where other road users will expect overtaking traffic
(e.g. motorcycles) to be, and there is less of risk of passengers opening
nearside doors or pedestrians stepping off the kerb without warning.

No, they just walk out from the car next to you without warning..

If you can't see through (or over) the car windscreen that the road in
front is clear, don't do the overtake. Simples. Pedestrians don't
instantly materialise in the centre of the road, they have to get there
from somewhere else.

Quote:

There would be no incentive for anyone to overtake on the nearside if
drivers would not insist on hugging the centre line all the time.

Have you not noticed there's often cars coming the other way, that's
why we tend to leave you space on the left instead.

If three feet in the gutter is sufficient space for a cyslist to
overtake on the left, then the same three feet on the right are
sufficient space to overtake on the right. It also usually has better
sight lines, is less likely to be full of pedestrians, and is probably
not paved with potholes, broken glass, and drain covers.

Really, as a motorcyclist, would you have preferred the space on the
inside? So why do you imagine it's different for cyclists?

-dan

#43

"Clive George" <clive (AT) xxxx-x (DOT) fsnet.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quote:

You've been hanging around urc long enough to know that Ian has
experience of this, except in this case it wasn't a little scratch he
had, but rather more serious. And no, the large unique identification
number didn't help one bit.

I don't "hang around" urc at all - but I think I am aware of the
incident you refer to, although I hadn't clocked it was the same
poster. But, anyway, that large unique identification number certainly
DID help, as otherwise the Llama in question would not have been
traceable to begin the ensuing arguments about liability with.

It wasn't arguments about liability, it was tracing the thing in the
first place. Hit and run, not insured, false registration details.

OK, I'm clearly thinking of something else.

Even so - surely having a small percentage of the population untraceable
is preferable to having the entire population untraceable? Especially
when the untraceability is going to be both an offence in itself and
obvious to a routine automated check whenever spotted by suitably
equipped police vehicles?

#44

Daniel Barlow <dan (AT) telent (DOT) net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Quote:

Have you not noticed there's often cars coming the other way, that's
why we tend to leave you space on the left instead.

If three feet in the gutter is sufficient space for a cyslist to
overtake on the left, then the same three feet on the right are
sufficient space to overtake on the right.

Hmm. I know I'd far rather cycle in three feet of space between
stationary vehicles and a kerb than in three feet of space between
stationary vehicles and oncoming moving vehicles - even despite...

Quote:

It also usually has better sight lines, is less likely to be full of
pedestrians, and is probably not paved with potholes, broken glass, and
drain covers.

Really, as a motorcyclist, would you have preferred the space on the
inside? So why do you imagine it's different for cyclists?

Ummm, motorbikes have better acceleration and brakes, so can "pick and
choose" gaps between oncoming vehicles more easily?

#45

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"Clive George" <clive (AT) xxxx-x (DOT) fsnet.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

You've been hanging around urc long enough to know that Ian has
experience of this, except in this case it wasn't a little scratch he
had, but rather more serious. And no, the large unique identification
number didn't help one bit.

I don't "hang around" urc at all - but I think I am aware of the
incident you refer to, although I hadn't clocked it was the same
poster. But, anyway, that large unique identification number certainly
DID help, as otherwise the Llama in question would not have been
traceable to begin the ensuing arguments about liability with.

It wasn't arguments about liability, it was tracing the thing in the
first place. Hit and run, not insured, false registration details.

OK, I'm clearly thinking of something else.

Even so - surely having a small percentage of the population untraceable
is preferable to having the entire population untraceable?

I'll put you down for the barcode on the forehead then.

Quote:

Especially
when the untraceability is going to be both an offence in itself and
obvious to a routine automated check whenever spotted by suitably
equipped police vehicles?

How does the number of untracable motorists compare to the number of regular
cyclists?

#46

On 23 Sep, 14:30, Daniel Barlow <d... (AT) telent (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

Mike P <mike_w_pear... (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk> writes:
I appreciate the gesture, but honestly I'd far prefer to have the space
on the offside where other road users will expect overtaking traffic
(e.g. motorcycles) to be, and there is less of risk of passengers opening
nearside doors or pedestrians stepping off the kerb without warning.

No, they just walk out from the car next to you without warning..

If you can't see through (or over) the car windscreen that the road in
front is clear, don't do the overtake. *Simples. *Pedestrians don't
instantly materialise in the centre of the road, they have to get there
from somewhere else.

There would be no incentive for anyone to overtake on the nearside if
drivers would not insist on hugging the centre line all the time.

Have you not noticed there's often cars coming the other way, that's
why we tend to leave you space on the left instead.

If three feet in the gutter is sufficient space for a cyslist to
overtake on the left, then the same three feet on the right are
sufficient space to overtake on the right. *It also usually has better
sight lines, is less likely to be full of pedestrians, and is probably
not paved with potholes, broken glass, and drain covers.

Out here, it's usually full of crap and bits of tyre, stones and crud.
It's certainley no worse than the kerbside of a car.

Quote:

Really, as a motorcyclist, would you have preferred the space on the
inside? *

No, but I don't feel as vunerable on a motorcycle as I do on a
bicycle, being that I'm riding 160kgs of bike with 120+ horsepower and
have leathers, helmet, gloves and boots on. On a bicycle, I might have
a pretty ineffectual helmet on.

Quote:

So why do you imagine it's different for cyclists?

I don't imagine it. I cycle plenty. The pavement is a "safe haven"
that I can get to very quickly if things go tits up on a bicycle. The
middle of the road isn't.

Mike P

Quote:

-dan

#47

On 23 Sep, 14:34, Adrian <toomany2... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Daniel Barlow <d... (AT) telent (DOT) net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Have you not noticed there's often cars coming the other way, that's
why we tend to leave you space on the left instead.
If three feet in the gutter is sufficient space for a cyslist to
overtake on the left, then the same three feet on the right are
sufficient space to overtake on the right.

Hmm. I know I'd far rather cycle in three feet of space between
stationary vehicles and a kerb than in three feet of space between
stationary vehicles and oncoming moving vehicles - even despite...

Well, exactly, but some don't see the logic behind that..

Quote:

It also usually has better sight lines, is less likely to be full of
pedestrians, and is probably not paved with potholes, broken glass, and
drain covers.
Really, as a motorcyclist, would you have preferred the space on the
inside? *So why do you imagine it's different for cyclists?

Ummm, motorbikes have better acceleration and brakes, so can "pick and
choose" gaps between oncoming vehicles more easily?

Indeed. That was my other point. There's also the fact that you have
to wear better protection by law on a motorcycle..

Mike P

#48

"Clive George" <clive (AT) xxxx-x (DOT) fsnet.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quote:

Even so - surely having a small percentage of the population
untraceable is preferable to having the entire population untraceable?

I'll put you down for the barcode on the forehead then.

So you don't see any reason for any vehicle to carry that large and
easily visible identification number?

Quote:

Especially
when the untraceability is going to be both an offence in itself and
obvious to a routine automated check whenever spotted by suitably
equipped police vehicles?

How does the number of untracable motorists compare to the number of
regular cyclists?

Oooh, a single digit percentage compared to 100%...

#49

Mike P <mike_w_pearson (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk> writes:

Quote:

No, but I don't feel as vunerable on a motorcycle as I do on a
bicycle, being that I'm riding 160kgs of bike

Right, yes, I know I'd rather have that land on me in a crash than my
10kg pedal cycle. Er, wait ...

Quote:

with 120+ horsepower

of which you use what proportion when filtering in stationary traffic?

Quote:

and
have leathers, helmet, gloves and boots on.

I don't imagine it. I cycle plenty. The pavement is a "safe haven"
that I can get to very quickly if things go tits up on a bicycle.

Get to very quickly by means of pringling your front wheel on the kerb
and then being thrown into the assortment of sharp-edged street
furniture with which it is filled. And with significant risk of causing
injury to pedestrians if you hit one at any kind of speed.

It sounds to me as though you have a personal preference for cycling in
the gutter, which is based on instinct and on fear of traffic (as you
said, "feel as vulnerable"). Which is an opinion you're entitled to,
but I don't think a rational assessment of the actual risks would result
in the same decison. At the end of the day, vehicle operators generally
act far more predictably than pedestrians do.

-dan

#50

Adrian <toomany2cvs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Quote:

Really, as a motorcyclist, would you have preferred the space on the
inside? So why do you imagine it's different for cyclists?

Ummm, motorbikes have better acceleration and brakes, so can "pick and
choose" gaps between oncoming vehicles more easily?

In the space between 0 and 10mph, the greater braking/acceleration
potential of a motorcycle is scarcely relevant now is it? And in only
three feet of space (my handlebars are a foot and a half wide) you'd
have to be a bit mad to be doing more than about 12mph on *either* side
of the lane. All it takes is a passenger who decides to get out of
their taxi without checking

-dan