Is this the driver of the car's fault?

[Jody]

Maybe there's been a misunderstanding which could be my fault although I'm not going to trawl back through the thread to check exactly what language I was using. I'm not asserting that she should have stopped, I'm wondering whether there could have been any mitigating action she could have taken, including thinking about whether her speed was perhaps a little excessive for the type of road she was on.

I'm not trying to pick an argument

There were a couple of contradictory statements and I think we've just got into one of those loops.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I think you’ll find you’re the one who brought up lorry, a number of posts before me. That’s what I responded to.

If I'm in a lorry and it hits a Citroen at 30mph, I'm walking home.

You're the one who brought up lorries

 

[winjim]

I think you’ll find you’re the one who brought up lorry, a number of posts before me. That’s what I responded to.

Give over

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Give over

View attachment 717905

Either way in the thought experiment you failed and didn’t pass your test.

 

[winjim]

Either way in the thought experiment you failed and didn’t pass your test.

You could just say oh yeah sorry you were right, I did bring up lorries.

Why did you bring up lorries?

 

[presta]

Using eye contact as any kind of predictor of another road users future behaviour is a good way to quickly end up dead.

You can change behaviour with eye contact. Staring directly at someone will get their attention, because brains that didn't evolve an instinct to pay attention to staring eyes all got eaten by predators on the plains of Africa thousands of years ago.

We're advised to ride at a speed where we can stop within the distance we can see to be clear and to my mind that includes taking into account whether that distance may suddenly decrease due to the, in this case entirely predictable, actions of others.

When I'm descending a big hill fast I'm acutely aware of the risk of hazards leaping out in front of me, and cover the brakes, but I don't usually slow down (much) because of the energy it wastes. It's the same reason I'll ride on the road rather than give way to every side road on a cycle path.

What debates like this and others show is that:

• There is no evidence that people don't want risk, in fact people choose it, every day. If we didn't want the risk of motor transport we needn't have made ourselves dependent on it. One persons freedom is another's risk that they'll do something that's not in their interest, so a world without risk would be a world without freedom, and yet every safety debate always starts from the false premise that risk is unwanted.
• Everyone has their own personal appetite for risk, and it won't necessarily be the same as that of the next person. One person is happy to go skydiving, and another isn't.
• People are 1000 times more sensitive to a risk that's imposed upon them by others than one that they choose for themselves.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

You could just say oh yeah sorry you were right, I did bring up lorries.

Why did you bring up lorries?

I didn't specifically bring up lorry’s, I brought up motorised vehicles with cars and lorry’s as examples. You’re the one who ran with lorry’s specifically and ran with the thought experiment of you’re going to plow on regardless because you’re in your big truck that’ll protect you and you don’t care about more vulnerable road users.

 

[winjim]

I didn't specifically bring up lorry’s, I brought up motorised vehicles with cars and lorry’s as examples. You’re the one who ran with lorry’s specifically and ran with the thought experiment of you’re going to plow on regardless because you’re in your big truck that’ll protect you and you don’t care about more vulnerable road users.

View attachment 717908

I did mention vulnerable road users. I'm not wrong, I just answered your question in a different way than you expected. Now I've asked you for clarification and you aren't providing it.

I think that a cyclist could be advised to ride with caution because they are a vulnerable road user, as evidenced by the op. I think for a lorry driver this specific consideration does not apply.

I don't think I can make it simpler or more concise than that.

 

[icowden]

I’m sure he can answer for himself rather than needing a personal assistant to respond with their interpretation.

I'm sure that you could have accepted and understood what he said rather than pretending not to. If you want to have a private chat, maybe an internet forum is not the right place?

 

[icowden]

I didn't specifically bring up lorry’s, I brought up motorised vehicles with cars and lorry’s as examples. You’re the one who ran with lorry’s specifically and ran with the thought experiment of you’re going to plow on regardless because you’re in your big truck that’ll protect you and you don’t care about more vulnerable road users.

Again, you seem to have failed to understand the thought experiment which is about risk assessment. We assess risk differently based on different situations.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Mod Note:
A gentle reminder that nitpicking, arguing round in circles, etc. spoil an interesting thread plus are against the forum rulz.
Please desist, thanks from the mods

 

[BoldonLad]

Seems in your thought experiment you’d fail the attitude test required of a responsible and capable driver and fail to gain a licence.

I last took a driving test (motor cycle) approximately 10 years ago, don't recall an attitude test, has such a. thing been introduced recently?

If it has, well done, a desirable development, in my view.

 

[simongt]

I'm sure most of us have experience the worrying situation when we're on the main road, a vehicle pulls out, or is planning on pulling out, the driver is looking on what appears to be at you, but doesn't actually register you're there as they're looking 'through you' or past you because they're focused on something bigger that a bike.

 

[Slick]

I'm sure most of us have experience the worrying situation when we're on the main road, a vehicle pulls out, or is planning on pulling out, the driver is looking on what appears to be at you, but doesn't actually register you're there as they're looking 'through you' or past you because they're focused on something bigger that a bike.

Every other day.

 

[Bristolian]

None of whom are "the police".

The NPCC are a company limited by guarantee, and about a half of them aren't even police officers. Lord knows who the others think they are.

I've served in two different forces and worked for extended periods with two others, and none of them use this tome. Get over it.

Being a limited company is immaterial. There are around 100 limited companies directly relating to various police forces/associations in the UK, including the Police Federation of England & Wales which, I believe, is the staff association for "police constables, sergeants, inspectors, chief inspectors and special constables in the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales". Maybe they're not policemen and women?

According to the NPCC web site their membership consists of the Chief Constables of (as far as I can tell) every police force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland plus some non-civil police forces and the National Crime Agency and the College of Policing. Maybe they're not policemen and women?

I have contacts in the roads policing teams of eleven English police forces and they all use Roadcraft for training and as a reference book for driving standards. I'm over it.