Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

[platinumsage]

You’re right it’s at the milder side of these but tbh it’s the mudanity of it & the thought we should just accept this dangerous driving that makes it a perfect example. How are kids meant to cycle anywhere if they’re just meant to put up with that sort of thing?

Fact is we shouldn’t just have to put up with it and we don’t hence all the measures (cycle lanes, LTNs etc) that people campaign for and are being put in despite to protests of cabbie organisations and gammon faced Jeremy Clarkson wannabes.

We will always have to put up with people making mistakes and errors of judgement. Even if you ban all the worse-than-average drivers and have mandatory annual re-training or whatever.

I've always said I'm in favour of off-road cycle lanes etc. Not sure how Jeremy Vine is helping the cause.

 

[edcraw]

Yeah I'm sure you asked for your HGV license to be revoked that one time you forgot to signal while driving your car.

Who ‘forgets’ to signal? Should be absolutely automatic. Again you’re excusing & downplaying shit driving.

 

[edcraw]

We will always have to put up with people making mistakes and errors of judgement. Even if you ban all the worse-than-average drivers and have mandatory annual re-training or whatever.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything though - you can never get rid of all risk but you can drastically reduce it.

I've always said I'm in favour of off-road cycle lanes etc.

and the video is a great example of why they’re so needed.

Not sure how Jeremy Vine is helping the cause.

He’s pointing out the dangers that people like you think we should just put up with. How is it not helping “the cause”?

 

[kabbes]

Yeah I'm sure you asked for your HGV license to be revoked that one time you forgot to signal while driving your car.

Don’t know what you’re suggesting here. Aside from the obvious fact that I don’t have an HGV licence, there is a huge qualitative gulf in recklessness between that left hook and a failure to signal. The latter can potentially be dangerous, but the intent to turn is indicated by a lot more than a signal — for example, by slowing down, rather than accelerating to first overtake a cyclist. And if the HGV driver slows right down and then slowly starts to turn but has not checked his or her mirrors during the manoeuvre to ensure there is nothing coming up the inside, that is a problem regardless of signal.

 

[platinumsage]

Don’t know what you’re suggesting here. Aside from the obvious fact that I don’t have an HGV licence, there is a huge qualitative gulf in recklessness between that left hook and a failure to signal. The latter can potentially be dangerous, but the intent to turn is indicated by a lot more than a signal — for example, by slowing down, rather than accelerating to first overtake a cyclist. And if the HGV driver slows right down and then slowly starts to turn but has not checked his or her mirrors during the manoeuvre to ensure there is nothing coming up the inside, that is a problem regardless of signal.

You said you were in favour of "red light-breaking cyclist having their licence to carry passengers for money removed from them" which is about as relevant as you having your HGV licence revoked for failing to signal.

There isn't really a huge qualitative gulf in recklessness between a cyclist going through a red light and a car driver failing to signal.

Returning to the twitter clip it wasn't a left hook as there was no collision. The taxi driver slowed, displayed brake lights, and signaled left. The cyclist didn't even feel the need to brake during most of the incident, just slowing briefly before releasing the brakes and getting on the horn. They had plenty of opportunity to pass the taxi on the right but for some reason chose not to. For most people this wouldn't even have been an incident but dashcams and helmet cams can have strange effects on people's actions - just watch some camera users on mini-roundabouts cutting the circle to try and claim they weren't given way to so they can upload it.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Cyclists going through red lights have killed people,

*citation needed

 

[platinumsage]

*citation needed

Cyclist Ermir Loka who jumped red light and killed Peter McCombie in east London jailed for two years

Peter McCombie's family said in a statement: "The shock of losing him so abruptly, so suddenly, so unnecessarily, is something that will haunt us for a very long time to come."

news.sky.com

 

[edcraw]

This poor driver has mistakenly close passed a cyclist while accidentally leaning on their horn. Oh well - what ya gonna do?

 

[Orang Utan]

London’s finest

Never mind the last two pages of rowing - what I want to know is how the hell he filmed that? I have discounted the possibility of a drone!

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Never mind the last two pages of rowing - what I want to know is how the hell he filmed that? I have discounted the possibility of a drone!

360 camera on the top of his Helmet. The software edits out the stick holding it and you can change the angle and view in post production.

 

[platinumsage]

Who ‘forgets’ to signal? Should be absolutely automatic. Again you’re excusing & downplaying shit driving.

I don’t know if you are licensed to drive but this needs calling out. Signalling should absolutely not be automatic because it always needs careful consideration - a signal in the wrong situation could cause an accident. For example a fork in the road with an additional side turning on the left. Signal to take the left fork and a pedestrian waiting to cross it may think you’re taking the left turn and start crossing. Their decision will be affected by other factors such as your speed: take the fork too fast to make the turn and they’ll assume you‘re taking the fork. However signal left and take the fork more slowly than an average driver and they may assume you’re taking the left turn. Lots to think about and certainly not “automatic”:

 

[teuchter]

What a lot of nonsense. Signalling in that situation poses no hazard. Taking the junction too fast creates the hazard. Signal, take the junction slowly, and then even if they initially think you're taking the side road, there's plenty of time for them to realise you're not, and for you to stop if necessary.

What are the alternatives?
a) don't signal at all, and the pedestrian assumes you're taking the right fork, and starts crossing
b) signal left and then approach at high speed, in the hope that that this will make it clear to the pedestrian that you are heading this way and they will be mowed down if they attempt to cross?

 

[platinumsage]

What a lot of nonsense. Signalling in that situation poses no hazard. Taking the junction too fast creates the hazard. Signal, take the junction slowly, and then even if they initially think you're taking the side road, there's plenty of time for them to realise you're not, and for you to stop if necessary.

What are the alternatives?
a) don't signal at all, and the pedestrian assumes you're taking the right fork, and starts crossing
b) signal left and then approach at high speed, in the hope that that this will make it clear to the pedestrian that you are heading this way and they will be mowed down if they attempt to cross?

Good that you've done 114 words of thinking already, and not just signaled automatically. A shame though that you're relying on the pedestrian quickly realising you're ploughing on past them. If they see you signalling left and slowing, they could dart across the road in front of you at any moment. There could easily be no time for them to realise their mistake before it's too late.

Other options include not signalling, but slowing down more than usual and positioning your vehicle so it's clear you aren't zooming off to the right. Or perhaps signalling well in advance but then having seen the pedestrian look at you, cancel the signal early.

The fact you can't see a hazard in automatically signalling left all the way through this junction is worrying. Perhaps you'd benefit from a driving ban and an extended re-test.

 

[liquidindian]

Why are you making the person crossing the road less sympathetic by labelling them a pedo?

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Jesus fucking christ. Show me on the doll where the bicycle touched you

 

[liquidindian]

Signal to take the left fork and a pedestrian waiting to cross it may think you’re taking the left turn and start crossing.

At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I don’t know if you are licensed to drive but this needs calling out. Signalling should absolutely not be automatic because it always needs careful consideration - a signal in the wrong situation could cause an accident. For example a fork in the road with an additional side turning on the left. Signal to take the left fork and a pedestrian waiting to cross it may think you’re taking the left turn and start crossing. Their decision will be affected by other factors such as your speed: take the fork too fast to make the turn and they’ll assume you‘re taking the fork. However signal left and take the fork more slowly than an average driver and they may assume you’re taking the left turn. Lots to think about and certainly not “automatic”:

View attachment 346969

Well, we can add “all of this” to the things you’re desperately wrong about.

 

[platinumsage]

At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.

Not sure it's a good idea to instigate a pedestrian to run across that junction in an unknown direction into other traffic on the basis of your misinterpreted signal.

Anyway pretend there's a car and a bicycle both waiting to emerge if you like. The more you slow down and the more you signal left the more likely they are to assume you're taking the 90 degree turn and pull into your path.

 

[platinumsage]

Well, we can add “all of this” to the things you’re desperately wrong about.

A shame the Highway Code disagrees with you then, isn't it

"103 Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians, of your intended actions. You should always: give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time"

Nothing about signalling automatically. Perhaps you should hand in your licence too.

 

[liquidindian]

So now there's a car on the pavement signalling right, presumably having knocked down the pedo, and a cyclist playing a recorder while waiting. Any other elements you want to throw into the mix?

I think maybe it's time to give up both MS Paint and the Volvo.

 

[edcraw]

I don’t know if you are licensed to drive but this needs calling out. Signalling should absolutely not be automatic because it always needs careful consideration - a signal in the wrong situation could cause an accident. For example a fork in the road with an additional side turning on the left. Signal to take the left fork and a pedestrian waiting to cross it may think you’re taking the left turn and start crossing. Their decision will be affected by other factors such as your speed: take the fork too fast to make the turn and they’ll assume you‘re taking the fork. However signal left and take the fork more slowly than an average driver and they may assume you’re taking the left turn. Lots to think about and certainly not “automatic”:

View attachment 346969

WTF!!?? You cracked out MS Paint for this?!

You’re turning left - you signal left.

 

[edcraw]

Not sure it's a good idea to instigate a pedestrian to run across that junction in an unknown direction into other traffic on the basis of your misinterpreted signal.

Anyway pretend there's a car and a bicycle both waiting to emerge if you like. The more you slow down and the more you signal left the more likely they are to assume you're taking the 90 degree turn and pull into your path.

View attachment 346974

“The more you signal”?!?! What the hell are you on about?

 

[liquidindian]

What happens if you're signalling left and then some moving goalposts are waiting to cross, WHAT THEN?

 

[platinumsage]

WTF!!?? You cracked out MS Paint for this?!

You’re turning left - you signal left.

Not if it might be misleading though, and certainly not automatically like you claimed.

"103 Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians, of your intended actions. You should always: give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time"

 

[platinumsage]

“The more you signal”?!?! What the hell are you on about?

I'm pretty sure you neither drive nor cycle, and least I hope you don't do either. Maybe stick to topics on which you have some awareness, and try not to walk out on the streets without a safety chaperone to help you.

 

[kabbes]

A car waiting to emerge from a junction should never assume that the existence of a signal necessarily makes them safe to emerge from that junction. Doubly so on a complex junction like that one. If the driver turns right because they have assumed the other driver will turn left and left again, that is 100% the fault of the driver coming out the side road.

 

[platinumsage]

A car waiting to emerge from a junction should never assume that the existence of a signal necessarily makes them safe to emerge from that junction. Doubly so on a complex junction like that one. If the driver turns right because they have assumed the other driver will turn left and left again, that is 100% the fault of the driver coming out the side road.

How is that relevant? Do you always assume other road users will be careful not to misinterpret your signals? Do you not care if an accident results from such a misinterpretation as long you can point your finger at the other party for being at fault?

And you’ll find insurance companies and the police won’t always put 100% of the blame on the other party in such circumstances. I mean it’s even in the Highway Code that you shouldn’t give misleading signals.

 

[kabbes]

How is that relevant? Do you always assume other road users will be careful not to misinterpret your signals? Do you not care if an accident results from such a misinterpretation as long you can point your finger at the other party for being at fault?

And you’ll find insurance companies and the police won’t always put 100% of the blame on the other party in such circumstances. I mean it’s even in the Highway Code that you shouldn’t give misleading signals.

I never emerge from a junction just because I see somebody signalling to turn, I tell you that for nothing.

The point is that somebody planning to turn left should signal left, and not try to double-guess what a third-party emerging from another side road might assume. I am amazed that this needs saying.

 

[liquidindian]

How is that relevant?

You definitely need to signal before doing a u-turn.

 

[edcraw]

Not if it might be misleading though, and certainly not automatically like you claimed.

"103 Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians, of your intended actions. You should always: give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time"

How is it misleading to signal left if you’re turning left?

In your example you should be signalling well in advance in both cases.

If you don’t think so you’re obviously a shot driver.