Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 08/08/2014 22:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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...)

No, a bell is better, as it's more distinctive. And not being obliged
to have lights is just pandering to the lycra brigade.

Fanatic cyclists are a very vocal pressure group. They want roads
redesigned just for them, HGVs to be fitted with cameras, cycle routes
installed etc. They don't want to pay for them of course.


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

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 08/08/2014 22:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , 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...)

No, a bell is better, as it's more distinctive. And not being obliged
to have lights is just pandering to the lycra brigade.

Fanatic cyclists are a very vocal pressure group. They want roads
redesigned just for them, HGVs to be fitted with cameras, cycle routes
installed etc. They don't want to pay for them of course.



A few years back I saw a cycle track being installed in West Wales. The
road badly needed improving but no, the money was spent on an unused
cycle track.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 07:49:06 +0100, "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


"Never reverse out of a driveway" isn't mandatory, just good sensible
_advice_ as per the quote below.

"Do not try to reverse into a busy road from a side road or reverse
onto a road from a driveway, you should always _try_ to reverse in and
drive out."

Our driveway dips into the gutter so much that it's not very
practical to reverse in and drive out without grounding the front or
the rear end (notably the exhaust tailpipe) so I drive into and
reverse out of the driveway with an angled approach that eliminates
having both wheels on the front and rear axels drop into the gutter.

I'm _always_ very circumpspect about reversing out of my driveway,
taking care to ease the back end a foot or two onto the pavement and
pause whilst craning my neck to maximise my view of potential road and
pedestrian traffic, slowly inching back to gain a completely
unobstructed view of the road. This gives any traffic, pedestrian or
road, a longer chance to spot me and take appropriate action.

As was also mentioned in that 'Howto', I make full use of my wing and
rearview mirrors as I ease myself off the drive, looking out for any
vulnerable pedestrians (it's a residential through road so I'm
concerned with the possibility of a toddler getting ahead of its
minder (sibling or parent) and running into my path.

If it wasn't for the issue with the roadside gutter, I'd prefer to
reverse in and drive out since it makes the most hazardous of those
manouvres much easier to perform safely. My pragmatic solution just
means that more effort is required to safely exit my driveway.
--
J B Good

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

mcp wrote


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.


A load of ********

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.u...ensen-v-moore-
reviews-cases-involving-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Dennis@home wrote


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.


**** me - WTF did you dream that crap up from?

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 08:29:07 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

"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

That even extends to elephants hidden in contour lines on a map as
demonstrated on QI a few years back.

It's a phenomena well known and observed by scientists interested in
studying human perception. Although the way we interpret how we see
the world around us is largely the result of some 500 million years of
development of the visual cortex, luckily for us, it's a reponse we
can learn to modify to cope with the recent changes that (on this time
scale) have taken place "in the blink of an eye" in our everday
environment.

Unlike the flying insects who seem determined _NOT_ to make
allowances for window glass, we _can_ add to our repetoire of visual
interpretation to avoid the same embarrassment.

The important thing is to conciously avoid 'seeing what we expect to
see' and learn to expect the unexpected. Thankfully, most of us do
manage to become reasonably skilled in this art. It's just a few that
develop 'bad habits' and fall into this trap but a few is all it takes
to cause notable accidents that otherwise seem avoidable to the
majority.

The one time I'm taciturn in regard to conversation is when I'm
driving. Other than the odd, curt comment[1] about other road users, I
actively avoid conversation. It's not that I'm incapable of such
'multi-tasking' so much as I don't want to compromise my driving
behaviour by such an unessential distraction.

I regard driving as a serious responsibility requiring all of my
attention to do the the task to the best of my ability. Even when
paying full attention to the task, I know all too well how easy it is
to still make a serious mistake (I'm only human, after all).

I just hope to eliminate the serious mistakes and do no worse than
commit a minor error of judgement involving nothing worse than damage
to inanimate victims. Expecting the unexpected is simply part and
parcel of the skill set required to drive a vehicle in reasonable
safety, especially on today's busy roads.

Drivers who can seemingly hold a conversation whilst 'on the job'
worry me somewhat since they're clearly diluting their attention to
the primary task in hand.

[1] I'm wise enough to realise that even this driving related comment
can be enough to distract me from my primary task, hence my curtness.
--
J B Good

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Tim Streater wrote


In article , stuart noble
wrote:

Cycling in London seems to be more about racing and wiggling your arse
about in bright colours than getting from A to B.

And purposelessly going about in great big gaggles which are designed
to say "look at us".

That's because they have *friends*. You know what friends are ?


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.

Yes, funny that, isn't 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

Or lights or mudguards.

Mudguards now. Any particular reason for mentioning them?


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

Anyone who cycles from A to B *for* *a* *purpose* (such as getting to
school or work) can have some respect, unlike these dweebs in their
lycra and Paddy Hopkirk racing gloves.

Like you wearing your flat cap when you're driving the car?

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Harry Bloomfield wrote


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.


Be honest, if you were that concerned about safety, you'd remove the
hedges.


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.

So what?

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:46:33 +0100, Jabba wrote:

mcp wrote


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.


A load of ********

Charming

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.u...ensen-v-moore-
reviews-cases-involving-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence

Did you actually read that link before posting it?

"He also ruled against an award of “contributory negligence” against
Smith, as claimed by Finch, (which could have led to a reduction in
the compensation award to Smith by up to 15%) on the grounds that
Smith had not been wearing a cycle helmet acknowledging that a helmet
worn by Smith could not have been expected to prevent the particular
injuries he suffered."

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 09/08/2014 00:37, Clive George wrote:
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?

Your point being? (assuming you have one) All right then, wherever I've
written "bell" accept I also mean "any other form of polite warning". OK
now?

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 09/08/2014 14:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Mal
wrote:

On 09/08/2014 00:37, Clive George wrote:
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.

A very good summary which some fatheads here appear to have difficulty
comprehending.

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?

Your point being? (assuming you have one) All right then, wherever
I've written "bell" accept I also mean "any other form of polite
warning". OK now?

See above. Personally I think you might say "any other form of warning
that unambiguously indicates that a bicycle is approaching".

Agreed. I don't like the idea of shouting, or even projecting, as easily
misunderstood but anything that gives early and polite warning plus
responsible speed is what is wanted.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Mike Barnes wrote:
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.


Well, I just did a quick check on my neighbours, all bar 1 of 17 of
their cars reverse off their drives!

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Mal
wrote:

On 09/08/2014 00:37, Clive George wrote:
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.

A very good summary which some fatheads here appear to have difficulty
comprehending.

+1

Tim

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

"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.



Runners have exactly the same problem as cyclists. Shouting "Coming
through!" works but many runners don't like shouting out and most
pedestrians don't like been shouted at. There solution for runners is the
same.

http://www.gizmag.com/runbell-runners-bell/32407/

Tim

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
"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.


The ones that cause accidents.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
"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

We're not talking about inattention or failing to see someone/thing.
We're talking about making a decision to drive into a driveway so
neccessitating having to reverse out.
When obviously you have a poorer view of any traffic.

A thicko/dope/idle git in other words.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Tim+ wrote:
"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.

Runners have exactly the same problem as cyclists.

But it's not such a serious problem. Runners go more slowly, they make
more noise, and they're less of a risk to pedestrians.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Jabba wrote on 09/08/2014 :
Be honest, if you were that concerned about safety, you'd remove the
hedges.

I am very concerned about safety, which is why if it were practical to
do so, I would reverse in and drive out. As it is I take extreme care
reversing out and trim my own hedge as much as I reasonably can. In 30+
years of reversing out, I have never had an issue.

Others are much less responsible than I, with high hedges and no
obvious reason to drive in forwards.

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

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Clive George wrote:
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.

That's something I often encounter, both on foot and cycling. Many
people seem to be pre-programmed to step *IN* *FRONT* of you as
you approach.

....I'm walking along the pavement, lamp-post up ahead, so veer slightly
to one side to pass the lamp-post, bugger!!! bloody idiot approaching
me decides that I've actually decided to cross to the other side of the
pavement and has crossed the pavement into my path.

jgh

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 09/08/14 21:09, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Jabba wrote on 09/08/2014 :
Be honest, if you were that concerned about safety, you'd remove the
hedges.

I am very concerned about safety, which is why if it were practical to
do so, I would reverse in and drive out. As it is I take extreme care
reversing out and trim my own hedge as much as I reasonably can. In 30+
years of reversing out, I have never had an issue.

Others are much less responsible than I, with high hedges and no obvious
reason to drive in forwards.

Th extraordinary thing is that that is the obvious safe way to do stuff,
as it puts the driver near the car front when emerging but no ****er
does it (bar me)

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

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Johny B Good wrote :
If it wasn't for the issue with the roadside gutter, I'd prefer to
reverse in and drive out since it makes the most hazardous of those
manouvres much easier to perform safely. My pragmatic solution just
means that more effort is required to safely exit my driveway.

I personally have no issues with that what so ever. Sometimes there
just is no sensible alternative, as in my case.

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

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Richard wrote:
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, really. You reverse into "controlled spaces" as you cannot see
where you are going, but you control the space by the physical fact
that you are blocking access to it with your vehicle. You advance
into "uncontrolled spaces" as you cannot control access to the space
so must have as much sight of the space as possible to see oncoming
dangers.

Highway code. Presumably you don't have a driving licence.

jgh

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 09/08/14 21:09, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Jabba wrote on 09/08/2014 :
Be honest, if you were that concerned about safety, you'd remove the
hedges.

I am very concerned about safety, which is why if it were practical to
do so, I would reverse in and drive out. As it is I take extreme care
reversing out and trim my own hedge as much as I reasonably can. In 30+
years of reversing out, I have never had an issue.

I prefer reversing in as the time I am coming out is often school time
and I am both on a corner, have a hedge and am on the main school route
to the local secondary.

As you know, kids are immortal and travel at random speeds.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

The Natural Philosopher brought next idea :
Th extraordinary thing is that that is the obvious safe way to do stuff, as
it puts the driver near the car front when emerging but no ****er does it
(bar me)

I always, unless there is a good reason not to, reverse into
supermarket and multi-story type parking spaces. Safer and much easier.
If driving anything into my drive apart from the car which has to go
into the garage, I reverse in. The car simply has to be reversed in to
fit and be able to get out. If it were possible to turn the car around
in my drive, I would opt to do that, but that again is not possible due
to its size. Though I can turn smaller vehicles around in my drive.

One of the worst vehicles to turn around is a large motorbike, which
cannot be reversed in uphill and has almost no lock, but I developed a
means to spin that around on the spot. A steel plate under the centre
stand, lean it against you so both wheels are off the ground and simply
twirl it around on one side of the centre stand.

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

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 09/08/2014 07:49, harryagain wrote:
It's a very bad practice to reverse out on to any road.

I drive straight into our drive and reverse out.

Were we on a main road, I wouldn't do that. It is a tiny side road
expressly intended for accessing garages and drives.

Reversing in causes exhaust fumes to go straight into our house when I
start the engine. That is why I don't reverse in!

--
Rod

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

"harryagain" wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
"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

We're not talking about inattention or failing to see someone/thing.

Really? That's precisely what we were talking about.

Tim

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

wrote in message
...

Richard wrote:
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, really. You reverse into "controlled spaces" as you cannot see
where you are going, but you control the space by the physical fact
that you are blocking access to it with your vehicle. You advance
into "uncontrolled spaces" as you cannot control access to the space
so must have as much sight of the space as possible to see oncoming
dangers.

Highway code. Presumably you don't have a driving licence.

Gotta love the presumptuous. I'll just presume that you are an onanist.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 09/08/2014 18:28, Mike Barnes wrote:

But it's not such a serious problem. Runners go more slowly, they make
more noise, and they're less of a risk to pedestrians.


I make much less noise when running than cycling.

Doesn't help much when the peddos commonly use headphones. Never use
headphones when leisure walking, cycling or running.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 09/08/2014 21:28, Harry Bloomfield wrote:


I always, unless there is a good reason not to, reverse into supermarket
and multi-story type parking spaces. Safer and much easier.

It "might" be safer (Personally I doubt it and suggest that it will
result in much more "car park rash"). Multi storey car parks are often
poorly lit and reversing in to a confined and poorly lit space is far
more likely to result in contact with cars parked on either side than
reversing out into a much bigger (but still poorly lit) area. You are
just as likely to run over pedestrians (in this poorly lit area) when
reversing in as out.

Unless you are lucky enough to be entitled to disabled or parent/child
spaces it is almost always not easier, since now when you get back to
your car with all of the shopping in the trolley you cannot get to your
own boot.

To me both of the above ammount to "good reasons not to" which apply a
large part of the time.


--
Chris

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

Tim Streater formulated the question :
Just look in any supermarket and multi-story type parking to see that
most people drive in forwards.

Most people lack any forethought and forward planning, because most
park that way does not make it the right or best practise way to do it.
Remember most also drive forwards into their drives too and risk
reversing into the main road, with no good reason to do it that way.

I can usually reverse into a space in one single movement, those I see
going in forwards usually need two or three movements. Your door
mirrors enable you to see much more of the lines as you reverse in,
than you can see of them going forwards. One I watched yesterday took
seven goes at it and still didn't get it quite right.

Going in reverse also requires less road width to get in and out, than
driving in forwards.

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

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 10/08/14 16:09, Tim Streater wrote:


For the parking areas listed above, it does, for the reason given by a
previous poster. You get back to your car with a full trolley. Now
kindly explain how I can get the trolley round to the boot area of the
car if I've backed into the parking spot and there are geezers parked
on both sides of my car. Eh? Eh?


http://youparklikea****.co.uk/image/94330762179

Problem solved. With apologies for the domainname...

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 10/08/14 13:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , news
wrote:

On 09/08/2014 21:28, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I always, unless there is a good reason not to, reverse into
supermarket
and multi-story type parking spaces. Safer and much easier.

This is cock but I can't remember why.

It "might" be safer (Personally I doubt it and suggest that it will
result in much more "car park rash"). Multi storey car parks are
often poorly lit and reversing in to a confined and poorly lit space
is far more likely to result in contact with cars parked on either
side than reversing out into a much bigger (but still poorly lit)
area. You are just as likely to run over pedestrians (in this poorly
lit area) when reversing in as out.

Unless you are lucky enough to be entitled to disabled or parent/child
spaces it is almost always not easier, since now when you get back to
your car with all of the shopping in the trolley you cannot get to
your own boot.

Ah, thanks, *this* is why it's cock.

Just look in any supermarket and multi-story type parking to see that
most people drive in forwards.

Exactly. Cant even open the tailgate unless there is 4ft of rear clearance.


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

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

On 10/08/2014 12:24, news wrote:
On 09/08/2014 21:28, Harry Bloomfield wrote:


I always, unless there is a good reason not to, reverse into supermarket
and multi-story type parking spaces. Safer and much easier.

It "might" be safer (Personally I doubt it and suggest that it will
result in much more "car park rash"). Multi storey car parks are often
poorly lit and reversing in to a confined and poorly lit space is far
more likely to result in contact with cars parked on either side than
reversing out into a much bigger (but still poorly lit) area. You are
just as likely to run over pedestrians (in this poorly lit area) when
reversing in as out.

If you think reversing is difficult can I suggest you practice doing it.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

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


There are some drives where it is impossible to reverse in. My
daughters house for example, on a busy main road, 20 yards from a
junction with traffic lights.

When you approach from the simplest route, you have to turn right to
enter the drive. Reversing across a lane of traffic isn't a good idea.

If you approach from the other direction & stop to reverse in, someone
will pull up behind you as its a busy road.

The only safe option is to drive in.

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

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
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


There are some drives where it is impossible to reverse in. My
daughters house for example, on a busy main road, 20 yards from a
junction with traffic lights.

When you approach from the simplest route, you have to turn right to
enter the drive. Reversing across a lane of traffic isn't a good idea.

If you approach from the other direction & stop to reverse in, someone
will pull up behind you as its a busy road.

The only safe option is to drive in.

and how safe is it driving out?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

In article ,
Tim Streater writes:
In article , Mal
wrote:

On 09/08/2014 00:37, Clive George wrote:
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.

A very good summary which some fatheads here appear to have difficulty
comprehending.

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?

Your point being? (assuming you have one) All right then, wherever I've
written "bell" accept I also mean "any other form of polite warning". OK
now?

See above. Personally I think you might say "any other form of warning
that unambiguously indicates that a bicycle is approaching".

I don't ever seem to need to use it.
I anticipate the need on approach and generally avoid the situation.
I don't presume the right/priority to cycle through a bunch of people
even if they're standing on a cycle lane.
In a genuine emergency which couldn't be forseen, there isn't time
to use it anyway. A parked car suddenly turned out across my path
a few days ago. The sound of my rear wheel sliding as I did an
emergency stop was far more effective than a bell (and it probably
sounded like I was a bigger vehicle about to slam into him). The
car instantly stopped and the driver looked like he'd **** himself.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

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

On 10/08/2014 12:24, news wrote:
On 09/08/2014 21:28, Harry Bloomfield wrote:


I always, unless there is a good reason not to, reverse into supermarket
and multi-story type parking spaces. Safer and much easier.

It "might" be safer (Personally I doubt it and suggest that it will
result in much more "car park rash"). Multi storey car parks are often
poorly lit and reversing in to a confined and poorly lit space is far
more likely to result in contact with cars parked on either side than
reversing out into a much bigger (but still poorly lit) area. You are
just as likely to run over pedestrians (in this poorly lit area) when
reversing in as out.

If you think reversing is difficult can I suggest you practice doing it.

I'm up for that. Proviso: you stand behind my vehicle and instruct.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

On 10/08/14 16:09, Tim Streater wrote:


For the parking areas listed above, it does, for the reason given by a
previous poster. You get back to your car with a full trolley. Now
kindly explain how I can get the trolley round to the boot area of the
car if I've backed into the parking spot and there are geezers parked
on both sides of my car. Eh? Eh?


http://youparklikea****.co.uk/image/94330762179

Problem solved. With apologies for the domainname...

:)

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

"charles" wrote in message
...

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
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


There are some drives where it is impossible to reverse in. My
daughters house for example, on a busy main road, 20 yards from a
junction with traffic lights.

When you approach from the simplest route, you have to turn right to
enter the drive. Reversing across a lane of traffic isn't a good idea.

If you approach from the other direction & stop to reverse in, someone
will pull up behind you as its a busy road.

The only safe option is to drive in.

and how safe is it driving out?

As the location is a mere 20 yards from traffic lights, very safe.

Bicycle, crash hat and accident
 

A Cork, Irela Reg, Plate. Any Dublin man will tell you he would expect little else from a Cork Man