Female reversed at speed out of a drive, without looking and hit a
friend who was cycling on a grass verge adjacent to the footpath,
between footpath and road. Location is close to, but not in a village
and footpath is rarely used by pedestrians.

Police were called and PC suggested it was now the law to have to wear
a helmet if on the road, but as he was on the grass verge it was OK. PC
also suggested he would have been 'done', if riding on the actual
footpath. The road is ex-A1, wide, with very little traffic.

Have helmets become compulsory on the road and I thought it was now OK
to ride on footpaths in the country?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Female reversed at speed out of a drive, without looking and hit a friend
who was cycling on a grass verge adjacent to the footpath, between
footpath and road. Location is close to, but not in a village and
footpath is rarely used by pedestrians.

Police were called and PC suggested it was now the law to have to wear a
helmet if on the road, but as he was on the grass verge it was OK. PC
also suggested he would have been 'done', if riding on the actual
footpath. The road is ex-A1, wide, with very little traffic.

Have helmets become compulsory on the road

No

and I thought it was now OK to ride on footpaths in the country?

Officially only if it's designated for shared use.

Of course a blind eye is turned to young children using the footpaths but
really, footpaths are only for things moving at a pedestrian pace. When I'm
running, I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic on the
pavement.

Tim

On Friday, August 8, 2014 3:07:04 PM UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Female reversed at speed out of a drive, without looking and hit a friend

who was cycling on a grass verge adjacent to the footpath, between

footpath and road. Location is close to, but not in a village and

footpath is rarely used by pedestrians.



Police were called and PC suggested it was now the law to have to wear a

helmet if on the road, but as he was on the grass verge it was OK. PC

also suggested he would have been 'done', if riding on the actual

footpath. The road is ex-A1, wide, with very little traffic.



Have helmets become compulsory on the road



No



and I thought it was now OK to ride on footpaths in the country?



Officially only if it's designated for shared use.



Of course a blind eye is turned to young children using the footpaths but

really, footpaths are only for things moving at a pedestrian pace. When I'm

running, I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk

reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic on the

pavement.



Tim

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording) hence allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

On 08/08/2014 14:23, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I thought it was now OK to ride on footpaths in the country?

Absolutely not! A footpath, typically although not always in the
country, is what it says - for pedestrians only.

A footway is usually part of a roadway i.e. a pavement. Cycling is still
generally prohibited although there may be certain exceptions.

It's complicated, see:

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-ar...g-and-the-law/

Riding on country footpaths is prohibited and is one of my pet hates; it
churns up the path and makes it useless for its intended purpose: walking.

Another Dave

--
Change nospam to gmx in e-mail.

As far as I'm aware its note requirement to wear a cycle helmet yet. it
would be hard to enforce on an unlicensed, uninsured vehicle anyway. No its
not legal to ride on footways except where they are designated as shared.
There needs to be signage and most authorities actual paint a line on the
footway, but blind people are opposed to this as we cannot see either and
are thus unaware of cyclists.
I think your friend can count themselves lucky they are not dead, get a
helmet and wear it has to be the right thing. Also, even though its not
compulsory, get insurance!

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Female reversed at speed out of a drive, without looking and hit a friend
who was cycling on a grass verge adjacent to the footpath, between
footpath and road. Location is close to, but not in a village and footpath
is rarely used by pedestrians.

Police were called and PC suggested it was now the law to have to wear a
helmet if on the road, but as he was on the grass verge it was OK. PC also
suggested he would have been 'done', if riding on the actual footpath. The
road is ex-A1, wide, with very little traffic.

Have helmets become compulsory on the road and I thought it was now OK to
ride on footpaths in the country?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 08/08/2014 15:41, Another Dave wrote:


Riding on country footpaths is prohibited and is one of my pet hates; it
churns up the path and makes it useless for its intended purpose: walking.

Another Dave


My experience is that the broad tyres of MTBs tend to smooth out
bridleways that have been churned up by horses.
(Bikes are allowed on bridleways.)

--
Reentrant

Harry Bloomfield wrote


Female reversed at speed out of a drive, without looking and hit a
friend who was cycling on a grass verge adjacent to the footpath,
between footpath and road. Location is close to, but not in a village
and footpath is rarely used by pedestrians.

Police were called and PC suggested it was now the law to have to wear
a helmet if on the road, but as he was on the grass verge it was OK. PC
also suggested he would have been 'done', if riding on the actual
footpath. The road is ex-A1, wide, with very little traffic.

Have helmets become compulsory on the road and I thought it was now OK
to ride on footpaths in the country?


An 'innocent' cyclist who injures their head in an accident and wasn't
wearing a helmet is going to receive a lower settlement. Ditto horse
riders.

Riding on the pavement is illegal, except where part of the pavement has
been designated as a cycle path. EG - parts of Swansea seafront, near
County Hall.

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:


Of course a blind eye is turned to young children using the footpaths but
really, footpaths are only for things moving at a pedestrian pace. When I'm
running, I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic on the
pavement.

They should expect pedestrians moving at whatever speed a pedestrian
can, including running for the bus or whatever else they want to run for!


These days they can reasonably expect to have cycles and scooters too.

On 08/08/14 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
As far as I'm aware its note requirement to wear a cycle helmet yet.

Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway.
It wouldn't make any difference...

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 08/08/2014 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
As far as I'm aware its note requirement to wear a cycle helmet yet. it
would be hard to enforce on an unlicensed, uninsured vehicle anyway. No its
not legal to ride on footways except where they are designated as shared.
There needs to be signage and most authorities actual paint a line on the
footway, but blind people are opposed to this as we cannot see either and
are thus unaware of cyclists.
I think your friend can count themselves lucky they are not dead, get a
helmet and wear it has to be the right thing. Also, even though its not
compulsory, get insurance!




The only sign on one locally is a waist high post, adjacent to the wall
/ hedge, with a small blue sign showing both a pedestrian and a bicycle.
I know that, at some point along its length, the pavement ceases to be
shared, but as I neither walk nor cycle along it, I'm not entirely sure
where.

--
Colin Bignell

Tim Streater wrote


In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

Harry Bloomfield wrote


Female reversed at speed out of a drive, without looking and hit a
friend who was cycling on a grass verge adjacent to the footpath,
between footpath and road. Location is close to, but not in a village
and footpath is rarely used by pedestrians.

Police were called and PC suggested it was now the law to have to wear
a helmet if on the road, but as he was on the grass verge it was OK. PC
also suggested he would have been 'done', if riding on the actual
footpath. The road is ex-A1, wide, with very little traffic.

Have helmets become compulsory on the road and I thought it was now OK
to ride on footpaths in the country?


An 'innocent' cyclist who injures their head in an accident and wasn't
wearing a helmet is going to receive a lower settlement. Ditto horse
riders.

Riding on the pavement is illegal, except where part of the pavement has
been designated as a cycle path. EG - parts of Swansea seafront, near
County Hall.

Are bicycles supposed to have lights and bells too?


No and No. Why would a bike need lights permanently fitted ?

On 08/08/2014 19:31, Jabba wrote:
Tim Streater wrote
....
Are bicycles supposed to have lights and bells too?


No and No. Why would a bike need lights permanently fitted ?



I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything and I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.


--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote


On 08/08/2014 19:31, Jabba wrote:
Tim Streater wrote
...
Are bicycles supposed to have lights and bells too?


No and No. Why would a bike need lights permanently fitted ?



I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything and I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.


A bulb horn makes 'em jump.

On 08/08/2014 19:40, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything and I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.

I find calling out to people works very well. I normally use a greeting,
timed to allow for the inevitable dithering which happens as people work
out what's going on. There seems to be no difference in the dithering
when friends use a bell in a similar situation.

On 08/08/2014 19:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/08/14 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
As far as I'm aware its note requirement to wear a cycle helmet yet.

Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway.
It wouldn't make any difference...

Loud applause.....

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Female reversed at speed out of a drive, without looking and hit a friend
who was cycling on a grass verge adjacent to the footpath, between
footpath and road. Location is close to, but not in a village and footpath
is rarely used by pedestrians.

Police were called and PC suggested it was now the law to have to wear a
helmet if on the road, but as he was on the grass verge it was OK. PC also
suggested he would have been 'done', if riding on the actual footpath. The
road is ex-A1, wide, with very little traffic.

Have helmets become compulsory on the road and I thought it was now OK to
ride on footpaths in the country?


Well, she shouldn't be reversing out.
She should either turn around or reverse in.
So she is at fault regardless.

harryagain pretended :
Well, she shouldn't be reversing out.
She should either turn around or reverse in.
So she is at fault regardless.

Agreed! There were no head injuries and as already said he was riding
on the grass verge between road a pavement.

A likely scenario is that she had reversed out of that drive lots of
times, over that rarely used pavement and never seen anyone on foot or
a bike, so why bother slowing down or looking?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 08/08/2014 19:04, Tim Streater wrote:
Are bicycles supposed to have lights and bells too?

No (except after dark) and yes.

fx googles
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...d-your-bicycle

OK, no, and no.

It's changed. My bike is now legal! (I've always reckoned "Excuse me"
or OI! as appropriate is better...)

Andy

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/08/14 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
As far as I'm aware its note requirement to wear a cycle helmet yet.

Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway.
It wouldn't make any difference...

Loud applause.....

*yawn*...

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
harryagain pretended :
Well, she shouldn't be reversing out.
She should either turn around or reverse in.
So she is at fault regardless.

Agreed! There were no head injuries and as already said he was riding on
the grass verge between road a pavement.

A likely scenario is that she had reversed out of that drive lots of
times, over that rarely used pavement and never seen anyone on foot or a
bike, so why bother slowing down or looking?

We all see what we expect to see. Behave unexpectedly and you risk not
being seen.

Tim

On 08/08/2014 19:55, Clive George wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:40, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything and I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.

I find calling out to people works very well. I normally use a greeting,
timed to allow for the inevitable dithering which happens as people work
out what's going on. There seems to be no difference in the dithering
when friends use a bell in a similar situation.


Law in most of Australia is that helmets are compulsory and bells should
be rung to warn pedestrians. Bloody good idea. I've warned a few loony
tunes on shared footpaths that they are at the gtreater risk if we
choose the right moment to totter sideways so ring their bell.

Without publicity as in Oz, though, many feel it rude to ring etc.

Mal wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:55, Clive George wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:40, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything and I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.

I find calling out to people works very well. I normally use a greeting,
timed to allow for the inevitable dithering which happens as people work
out what's going on. There seems to be no difference in the dithering
when friends use a bell in a similar situation.


Law in most of Australia is that helmets are compulsory and bells should
be rung to warn pedestrians. Bloody good idea. I've warned a few loony
tunes on shared footpaths that they are at the gtreater risk if we choose
the right moment to totter sideways so ring their bell.

Without publicity as in Oz, though, many feel it rude to ring etc.

That is a problem. British diffidence about drawing attention to oneself
(and just losing the habit) has meant that a lot of people are too shy to
ring a bell.

When I'm a pedestrian I much prefer cyclist to ring a bell early that whiz
by unannounced or wobble around waiting for a gap if I haven't heard them
coming.

Tim

Tim+ wrote:
British diffidence about drawing attention to oneself (and just
losing the habit) has meant that a lot of people are too shy to ring
a bell.

As a pedestrian I often draw attention to myself by shouting "use your
bell" or "where's your bell" as appropriate.

When I'm a pedestrian I much prefer cyclist to ring a bell early that
whiz by unannounced or wobble around waiting for a gap if I haven't
heard them coming.

IME as a cyclist, a bell is more likely to get a positive reaction when
rung early, as opposed to late and demanding immediate action from a
pedestrian who needs time to come to terms with the situation.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:04, Tim Streater wrote:
Are bicycles supposed to have lights and bells too?

No (except after dark) and yes.

fx googles
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...d-your-bicycle

OK, no, and no.

It's changed. My bike is now legal! (I've always reckoned "Excuse me"
or OI! as appropriate is better...)

I disagree. A bell communicates its message immediately, but someone
hearing a voice has no idea what it's about or whether it's coming from
a cyclist or a pedestrian.

And if you use your voice in good time (as you should) you'll need to
shout, and generally speaking people don't like being shouted at.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On 08/08/2014 21:55, Mal wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:55, Clive George wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:40, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything and I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.

I find calling out to people works very well. I normally use a greeting,
timed to allow for the inevitable dithering which happens as people work
out what's going on. There seems to be no difference in the dithering
when friends use a bell in a similar situation.


Law in most of Australia is that helmets are compulsory and bells should
be rung to warn pedestrians. Bloody good idea. I've warned a few loony
tunes on shared footpaths that they are at the gtreater risk if we
choose the right moment to totter sideways so ring their bell.

Without publicity as in Oz, though, many feel it rude to ring etc.

Which bit of "There seems to be no difference in the reaction between
using a bell and using a suitable greeting" didn't you understand?

On 08/08/2014 22:38, Mike Barnes wrote:

I disagree. A bell communicates its message immediately, but someone
hearing a voice has no idea what it's about or whether it's coming from
a cyclist or a pedestrian.

And if you use your voice in good time (as you should) you'll need to
shout, and generally speaking people don't like being shouted at.

You don't need to shout, you just need to make yourself heard. I believe
it's called projecting.

Works when running too - you still get the same "ooh, what's that?
Somebody is approaching on this narrow path. Mmm, why are they calling?
Ah, maybe they want to get past. You go to the left, I'll go to the
right. No, I'll go to the left, you go to the right. No, that's still
not working, let's both go to the left." at which point you pass. Which
is why you need to call in plenty of time.

When going fast on a bike, having a squeaky brake works well - the back
one on the tandem can be heard quite a long way off if I do it right.
Going fast is likely to be downhill, hands are already on the brakes, so
it's way faster than a bell would be.

The tandem also has the advantage that it's a fairly uncommon sight, so
people like to see them, and it's obviously big, so people know they are
going to have to get out of the way. If I'm squealing the brake there's
the message that I'm not going to be able to stop either, though
actually the brakes are really rather good.

For those people who like to infer the wrong thing, I should add the
above two paragraphs generally apply to riding on roads rather than
shared-use paths, and the people I'm warning are those 5 abreast across
the road.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 18:32:29 +0100, Jabba wrote:

An 'innocent' cyclist who injures their head in an accident and wasn't
wearing a helmet is going to receive a lower settlement. Ditto horse
riders.

Only if it can be proved that it would have made a difference.
Insurance companies like to try it on but it's never stood up in
court.

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:
I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic on the
pavement.

You reverse into a driveway and drive out forwards with full view what
is on the pavement.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 08/08/2014 22:34, Mike Barnes wrote:

IME as a cyclist, a bell is more likely to get a positive reaction when
rung early, as opposed to late and demanding immediate action from a
pedestrian who needs time to come to terms with the situation.


Around my way it appears that cyclist believe that they always have
right of way especially when riding in the dark, wearing dark clothing
and without lights.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"alan_m" wrote in message ...

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:
I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic on
the
pavement.

You reverse into a driveway and drive out forwards with full view what is
on the pavement.

Really!? If there are hedges or walls obscuring the view, the front end of
the car may already be on the pavement in cases where the pavement is
against the property border.

"Tim+" wrote in message
...

Mal wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:55, Clive George wrote:
On 08/08/2014 19:40, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I have always thought it a pity that it was ruled that the human voice
was a suitable audible warning device. A shout could mean anything and
I
think people are quite likely to ignore it, on the basis that they
would
rather not get involved with somebody shouting in the street. A bicycle
bell was a very distinctive sound and gave pedestrians much better
warning of a fast approaching hazard.

I find calling out to people works very well. I normally use a greeting,
timed to allow for the inevitable dithering which happens as people work
out what's going on. There seems to be no difference in the dithering
when friends use a bell in a similar situation.


Law in most of Australia is that helmets are compulsory and bells should
be rung to warn pedestrians. Bloody good idea. I've warned a few loony
tunes on shared footpaths that they are at the gtreater risk if we choose
the right moment to totter sideways so ring their bell.

Without publicity as in Oz, though, many feel it rude to ring etc.

That is a problem. British diffidence about drawing attention to oneself
(and just losing the habit) has meant that a lot of people are too shy to
ring a bell.

Some **** tarted, up in lycra is diffident? Yeah, right.


When I'm a pedestrian I much prefer cyclist to ring a bell early that whiz
by unannounced or wobble around waiting for a gap if I haven't heard them
coming.

Tim

--
Windows Live Mail?
Use this to make it behave itself:
WLMail QuoteFix - http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
harryagain pretended :
Well, she shouldn't be reversing out.
She should either turn around or reverse in.
So she is at fault regardless.

Agreed! There were no head injuries and as already said he was riding on
the grass verge between road a pavement.

A likely scenario is that she had reversed out of that drive lots of
times, over that rarely used pavement and never seen anyone on foot or a
bike, so why bother slowing down or looking?

We all see what we expect to see. Behave unexpectedly and you risk not
being seen.

Tim

No we don't. Never heard of defensive driving?
It's a very bad practice to reverse out on to any road.
Something basic you are taught while learning to drive.
I expect there's plenty of thickos here don't know it.
http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.c...se-safely.html

On 09/08/2014 07:27, Richard wrote:
"alan_m" wrote in message ...

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:
I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic
on the
pavement.

You reverse into a driveway and drive out forwards with full view what
is on the pavement.

Really!? If there are hedges or walls obscuring the view, the front end
of the car may already be on the pavement in cases where the pavement is
against the property border.

Cut the hedges and/or the wall.

On 09/08/2014 07:49, harryagain wrote:

No we don't. Never heard of defensive driving?
It's a very bad practice to reverse out on to any road.
Something basic you are taught while learning to drive.
I expect there's plenty of thickos here don't know it.
http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.c...se-safely.html



There are a lot of people taught to drive by their parents/friends and
others that don't know how to drive in the first place.
They will never have seen the highway code or Driving and will only have
learnt the answers to the test without knowing anyone that knows what
the answers mean.

On 09/08/2014 07:49, harryagain wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
harryagain pretended :
Well, she shouldn't be reversing out.
She should either turn around or reverse in.
So she is at fault regardless.

Agreed! There were no head injuries and as already said he was riding on
the grass verge between road a pavement.

A likely scenario is that she had reversed out of that drive lots of
times, over that rarely used pavement and never seen anyone on foot or a
bike, so why bother slowing down or looking?

We all see what we expect to see. Behave unexpectedly and you risk not
being seen.

Tim

No we don't. Never heard of defensive driving?
It's a very bad practice to reverse out on to any road.
Something basic you are taught while learning to drive.
I expect there's plenty of thickos here don't know it.
http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.c...se-safely.html



Cycling in London seems to be more about racing and wiggling your arse
about in bright colours than getting from A to B. Like all hobbies
(golf, fishing, photography etc) you need to buy a huge amount of
*stuff* and that almost becomes more enjoyable than doing it.
Parts of East London, particularly towpaths, have become hostile
environments for those of us who just want to stroll along them.
Cyclists won't have bells because of the extra weight. They just seem
like a bunch of anti social brats to me
I know two cyclists who have commuted into London (45 mins each way) for
several years, and neither wears a helmet, but they don't have anything
plugged into their ears either

"harryagain" wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
harryagain pretended :
Well, she shouldn't be reversing out.
She should either turn around or reverse in.
So she is at fault regardless.

Agreed! There were no head injuries and as already said he was riding on
the grass verge between road a pavement.

A likely scenario is that she had reversed out of that drive lots of
times, over that rarely used pavement and never seen anyone on foot or a
bike, so why bother slowing down or looking?

We all see what we expect to see. Behave unexpectedly and you risk not
being seen.

Tim

No we don't.

Yes we do. Our brain makes assumptions and takes shortcuts to lessen the
amount of data it has to process. What you really don't expect to see is
much more likely to escape your notice. Well known psychological
phenomenon.

Never heard of defensive driving?

Of course I have. It doesn't prevent your brain from trying to take
shortcuts sometimes though. Just lessens the chance of you getting it
wrong.

It's a very bad practice to reverse out on to any road.

I agree. I don't do it. Millions of people do though.

Tim

"harryagain" wrote:
"Tim+" wrote:

We all see what we expect to see. Behave unexpectedly and you risk not
being seen.

Tim

No we don't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-spot-it.html

Not driving related but the principle holds true.

Tim

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 09/08/2014 07:27, Richard wrote:
"alan_m" wrote in message ...

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:
I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic
on the
pavement.

You reverse into a driveway and drive out forwards with full view what
is on the pavement.

Really!? If there are hedges or walls obscuring the view, the front end
of the car may already be on the pavement in cases where the pavement is
against the property border.

Cut the hedges and/or the wall.

Simply to accommodate a cyclist who is in the wrong place? Nah.

harryagain formulated on Saturday :
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
harryagain pretended :
Well, she shouldn't be reversing out.
She should either turn around or reverse in.
So she is at fault regardless.

Agreed! There were no head injuries and as already said he was riding on
the grass verge between road a pavement.

A likely scenario is that she had reversed out of that drive lots of
times, over that rarely used pavement and never seen anyone on foot or a
bike, so why bother slowing down or looking?

We all see what we expect to see. Behave unexpectedly and you risk not
being seen.

Tim

No we don't. Never heard of defensive driving?
It's a very bad practice to reverse out on to any road.
Something basic you are taught while learning to drive.
I expect there's plenty of thickos here don't know it.
http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.c...se-safely.html

It is bad practise, something to avoid if possible, but not always
possible. I have hedges at either side of the drive, a long and too
narrow to turn around drive. I also have no choice but to go in
forwards, in order to get the car into my garage, its not pratical
practical reverse in. I keep the hedges down so far as is pratical
practical reverse out at an absolute crawl with both front windows open
so I can hear. If anyones available I get someone to watch me out.

What I do find annoying, is car drivers who see the rear of my car
emerging, but are not bright enough to give a brief warning on their
horns of their approach, but will quite happily pull up outside a
friends house and use the horn to summon them.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Richard wrote:
"alan_m" wrote in message ...

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:
I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic on
the
pavement.

You reverse into a driveway and drive out forwards with full view what is
on the pavement.

Really!? If there are hedges or walls obscuring the view, the front end of
the car may already be on the pavement in cases where the pavement is
against the property border.

Yes, but driving out forwards is still better than reversing. And, if
you really can't see, you go nice and slow so that you can be seen in
good time.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England