Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

In both cases, as I understand
it, the guilty vehicle was coming from behind the cyclist. In one
case it was turning left across the end of a cycle lane.

The field of vision in the mirrors on the vehicle is irrelevant in
those cases, then. Rather a different kettle of fish.

No. A vehicle should never impinge on an area of road where is doesn't
know what is already there. A blind spot is no excuse, but an indication
of inadequate mirrors.

Right.

But if the vehicle is in the throes of overtaking the cyclists at the time,
the field of view of the mirrors is irrelevant, because the bloody driver
should KNOW that he's overtaking the cyclists, because he's just seen them
through the windscreen...

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:


There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or animal
could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle. The driver is
required to ensure that no-one is there. Deciding that no-one ought to be
there is not good enough.


The problem with what you are saying is that you are
using it to claim that the vehicle is unfit to be on the road.

IMHO this is ridiculous, using this measure t to decide that
the driver is culpable is one thing, using it to decide that the
designer of the vehicle (or the licensing authority) is also
culpable is quite another.

tim

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

In article . 170,
(Adrian) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

In both cases, as I understand
it, the guilty vehicle was coming from behind the cyclist. In
one case it was turning left across the end of a cycle lane.

The field of vision in the mirrors on the vehicle is irrelevant in
those cases, then. Rather a different kettle of fish.

No. A vehicle should never impinge on an area of road where is
doesn't know what is already there. A blind spot is no excuse, but
an indication of inadequate mirrors.

Right.

But if the vehicle is in the throes of overtaking the cyclists at the
time, the field of view of the mirrors is irrelevant, because the
bloody driver should KNOW that he's overtaking the cyclists, because
he's just seen them through the windscreen...

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

In article ,
(tim \(in sweden\)) wrote:

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or
animal could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle.
The driver is required to ensure that no-one is there. Deciding
that no-one ought to be there is not good enough.

The problem with what you are saying is that you are
using it to claim that the vehicle is unfit to be on the road.

IMHO this is ridiculous, using this measure t to decide that
the driver is culpable is one thing, using it to decide that the
designer of the vehicle (or the licensing authority) is also
culpable is quite another.

The drivers involved (AIUI) and you are claiming the couldn't see the
cyclists, as well as that they didn't see them. "Couldn't" implies a
system failure. A vehicle that is inherently dangerous to other road
users should not be on the roads.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

This would include cyclists or motorcyclists not overtaking other
vehicles on the left where they are turning left, and it also
includes, for example, giving a lorry a wide berth on a roundabout. It
would include not blocking a faster vehicle from overtaking a slower
one. It would include many other courtesies.

I'm not sure where the left turning vehicle is coming from behind, how a
cyclist or anyone else is supposed to do that.

Do what? A considerate bus driver wouldn't turn left onto another
vehicle that was already there. They should be booked if they do.

A considerate cyclist, OTOH, wouldn't overtake a bus on the left if,
for example, it was indicating to turn left but moving slower than the
cyclist. Arguably, it is a poor idea to overtake on the left of any
vehicle. If the bus is at a stop but unable to pull in for whatever
reason, it is particularly stupid - yet I've seen it.

Neil

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(tim \(in sweden\)) wrote:

The problem with what you are saying is that you are
using it to claim that the vehicle is unfit to be on the road.

IMHO this is ridiculous, using this measure t to decide that
the driver is culpable is one thing, using it to decide that the
designer of the vehicle (or the licensing authority) is also
culpable is quite another.

The drivers involved (AIUI) and you are claiming the couldn't see
the cyclists, as well as that they didn't see them. "Couldn't"
implies a system failure. A vehicle that is inherently dangerous to
other road users should not be on the roads.

Unless you have the transcript of an inquest or court proceedings, it's
pointless continuing this discussion on the basis of a 5-word quote from
the driver. The fact that the driver "couldn't see the cyclist" might
be because:
- he didn't look very carefully
- he looked after he started to turn
- the cyclist was difficult to see (e.g. no lights at night)
- the mirror was dirty
- the mirror was badly adjusted

To deduce, despite all these alternative possibilities, that the vehicle
is inherently dangerous is false logic. Since the driver should have
checked his mirror *before* starting to turn, he should have had a clear
view down the side of the vehicle. Where is the "inherent" danger in
the vehicle design?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

The drivers involved (AIUI) and you are claiming the couldn't see the
cyclists, as well as that they didn't see them. "Couldn't" implies a
system failure. A vehicle that is inherently dangerous to other road
users should not be on the roads.

"Couldn't", in this instance, implies an excuse because they didn't look.

You shouldn't NEED to look, because nobody in their right mind would BE
THERE in the first instance. If they are, it's their own ****ing silly
fault. But people like you insist on blaming the poor ****er who's trying
to thread a large truck or bus or whatever through a busy city junction,
instead of pointing the blame at the daft flat ******* whose stupidity is
busy buying is hosed away.

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

Martin Underwood wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote in
This is a classic case of the difference between what vulnerable road
users are advised to do and what dangerous road users should expect
them to do. E.g. pedestrians are advised to wear something white at
night, but drivers need to see them in time to avoid them even if
they're matt black from top to toe.
...
So no matter how stupid other road users are, it's always the vehicle
driver's fault?

Not always, no. The point is you do everything you can to avoid a
collision, regardless of whose fault it would be. If someone comes out
of a side turning in front of you you don't keep going, thinking, "oh,
well, it won't be my fault I hit him." You jam on all the brakes
and/or swerve to try to miss the idiot.

Yes, *everyone* on the road should drive/walk/cycle defensively, but this
should be on a "best endeavours" basis: if an accident still occurs, the
fault lies with the person who cocked up, not with the driver of the vehicle
who had priority.

Yes, but best endeavours means looking even when you're sure no-one
should be there.

Have you never started to move into the middle lane on the motorway
just as someone else does the same from the other side?

Colin McKenzie

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

Adrian wrote:

Colin McKenzie ) gurgled happily, sounding much
There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or animal
could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle.

No, there's precisely two.

1. The long vehicle overtakes them then turns left.
2. They undertake a long vehicle which is starting to turn left

3. Cyclist rides, or pedestrian steps, off the pavement
4. Cyclist starts off from side of road
5. Two roads merge, one lane each, and cyclist and HGV arrive at the
merge simultaneously and proceed in parallel
6. Cyclist emerges from side turning onto multi-lane road
7. Lorry turns right onto wide road next to cyclist

and I'm sure there are more, without getting too exotic.

Colin McKkenzie

-

Anti-bike signs on Bendibuses
 

Martin Underwood wrote:
If the cyclists were riding responsibly, they shouldn't even have been in a
position where the driver of the bus *needed* to check his left-hand mirror
before turning left. The rule is simple: never never even begin to overtake
a vehicle that is indicating to turn towards you. On the approach to a
junction, assume that any vehicle in front of you might be planning to turn
left or that you may not have seen his indicator, so don't overtake near
junctions.

If a driver is turning left and is crossing another lane in doing so
then it is the driver's responsibility to check that lanes (s)he
crosses are clear beforehand. Whatever sort of lane is being crossed,
it is a courtesy to slow down and let the person turning left do so,
but not a requirement. So a cyclist in a cycle lane can, but doesn't
have to, give way to a car waiting in another lane. The same for a car
in an ordinary road when there is an oncoming car waiting to turn right
- ideally you would slow down and let them cross but you don't have to.
As soon as you start thinking about cycle lanes as "real lanes" it all
makes sense.

Back to the point about bendy buses.. The bendis seem to need to pull
out away from the kerb when going around a corner (left or right). If
the driver does this when going left, a cyclist may see a much
increased gap to the left of the bus and cycle into it just as the bus
pulls back in. A pretty useful sign.