 |
|
 |
|
On 20 Apr 2009 14:35:50 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
In article <...@giganews.comWally <...@dotat.atdot
Thanks for asking. By and large it seems from your description like a
reasonable maneouvre, but I have some comments.
It's rarely necessary to make any audible warning explicitly.
Cyclists often get aggro from drivers and use of the horn and even of
a small blip on the engine can be worrying. A competent cyclist will
normally be aware of your presence; the horn is for if they're clearly
oblivious. (Personally I would prefer a short blip on the horn than
on the engine but opinions here seem to vary.)
They certainly should have done, both to check up on you and to make
sure you knew that they knew you were there. This is something to
watch for.
If the riders in front _haven't_ looked at you, then perhaps some kind
of deliberate audible warning would be sensible if the overtake is
going to be somewhat short of space. In your position I would not
have started the overtake unless I was sure that they were aware of
me.
Yes.
I think that if they're riding two abreast, they've decided that the
road surface and weather conditions mean that they're happy with the
space they've given themselves. I don't think I agree with them,
though.
Normally I would suggest a steady overtaking speed differential of
more like 10mph - assuming that you can be sure that they've seen you
and are expecting you. During the overtake, the time with the vehicle
alongside is the most hazardous part, and it would be best to minimise
it. But it seems that the clearance was rather short:
If accurate, that is very tight. If I had been these cyclists I think
I would have arranged for you to be able to make the overtake without
coming so close, probably by moving (perhaps partway) into single
file. It also seems to me that they failed to communicate and
negotiate well with you - hence your need to come here for a second
opinion.
It's hard to say without being there myself but if I encountered that
situation as a driver I might well have waited behind until a better
opportunity. Cyclists normally don't like having motor vehicles
hovering behind and if you refuse to take what you consider an unsafe
overtaking opportunity they are likely to present you with a better
one, or wave you past, or whatever.
The Highway Code is of practically no use on this point. Whether or
to ride abreast or in single file depends so much on the various
conditions that making a rule about it isn't really sensible.
Instead, cyclists should (as ever) use their road position to
(a) maintain their own safety and (b) facilitate the passage of other
road users. Sometimes that means riding abreast, sometimes not.
It's not clear to me from your description whether if they'd been in
single file it would have been easier for you - the additional
distance to cover can be more of a problem than the additional width.
But overall I guess that you felt it would have been easier and safer
if they had moved into single file for you, and I see no reason to
doubt your judgement. And in that case I think they were both less
considerate, and less safe, than they should have been.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <...@chiark.greenend.org.ukThese opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:12:13 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On 20 Apr 2009 14:35:50 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
<snip
How can riding abreast maintain their own safety and/or facilitate the
passage of other road users?
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:25:07 +0100, Peter Fox <...@PeterFox.ukfsn.org
(1) Don't ever use horns for horses or cycles
(2) Often it is best for a bunch of cyclists to be 'as compact as sensible'
which can be done by riding 2(etc) abreast. The obvious difficult extreme is a
dozen cyclists nose to tail out along a lane where you can't overtake without
time to pass all of them. Probably better to be in separate bunches of four or
six 2-up with headway between them. Bunch up at junctions as a matter of
course, but don't act like a sheep in a flock when deciding when to 'go'.
(3) The rule of thumb I use is : If oncoming traffic passes OK when you're 2-up
then it should be OK for overtaking traffic. (In this situation if there isn't
room to overtake 2 then it isn't safe to overtake 1.)
(4) When overtaking cyclists in a car and there's more traffic behind me I
overtake fully in the other lane to set a good example and _then continue well
across the line if it is safe to do so_ to indicate to the following traffic
that there is nothing coming as I'm ahead and can 'see round the bend' that they
can't from behind.
(5) It is best to get past smartly. Be decisive.
--
Peter 'Prof' Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:23:54 +0100, "Graham Harrison" <...@remove.btinternet.com
This is the bit that so many people seem to fail to understand. They get
annoyed at cyclists riding two up but how much more frustrating is a
stretched out line of even two who are too far apart for a car to fit into.
Much better (in my view) to have a compact group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:59:21 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:25:07 +0100, Peter Fox
<...@PeterFox.ukfsn.org
Why not - does the horn frighten them?
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:55:50 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
It's fairly common knowledge that it can alarm animals and therefore could
cause danger.
I'm not so sure about not sounding the horn in the presence of a cyclist. I
guess it is put in that way because they don't like being beeped at (does
anyone?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:25:17 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:55:50 +0100, JNugent
<...@noparticularplacetogo.com
Yes of course - I was just leaving the unusual grouping which the PP
chose.
You use the word "beep" - I hear no aggression in a beep.
I have never taken offence at someone giving a light beep to warn me
of their presence.
There is no reason why anyone should not be able to sound a horn to
achieve the desired effect - wehatver is needed at the time.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:50:02 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah <...@hotmail.co.uk
On 19 Apr, 22:51, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
A short blip on the horn is a good idea; as someone has already said,
sometimes a headwind means that the cyclist can't hear you. As others
have said, it's all in the tone. Long blast means "Get out of my way,
cycling scum"; short blast means "when you're ready, I'm sitting here
and would like to get past". I'm not sure what the critical duration
is when short changes to long, so I guess we all need to be aware
that maybe the meaning of the horn can be mis-interpreted
As a cyclist if I saw a motorist driving at my speed behind me who had
so sounded his horn, I'd get into single file to let them past as soon
as I felt there was enough room.
As a motorist I'm nervous about overtaking cyclists if I think they
don't know I'm there, and it sounds like these two had given you no
such indication.
I'd give 10/10 for consideration, maybe 8/10 for choice of actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:13:14 +0100, "Clive George" <...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
"Martin" <...@news.motzarella.org...
FWIW I generally agree with this. There may have been scope to do things
differently and better, and since Wally asked for opinion he's getting it,
but I'm not saying that anybody involved made a cockup.
(I'd still be interested to know where the events took place).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:59:35 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:56:41 +0100, Martin <...@virgin.netwrote:
The fact that they may have been blocking the road could have escaped
them.
Have you see Anchor Lee's thoughts on this:
If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones,
you must have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway.
(Anchor Lee)
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:59:07 -0500, Mike the unimaginative <...@nospam.here
"Wally" <...@giganews.com:
snip account of pretty reasonable driving
One or more of them may have had a mirror
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:49:06 -0700 (PDT), gareth1946 <...@googlemail.com
On 19 Apr, 22:51, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
when my wife and i go cycling we ride in single file especialy on
narrow roads so as not to cause an obstruction to traffic.i have come
across cyclists riding side by side very often,causing traffic
tailbacks because cars did not have an opportunity to pass them owing
to oncoming traffic.i have also been held up by cyclists riding side
by side on roads with continious white lines,and nothing would
encourage them to ride single file.they should read the highway code a
bit more.the ones ive come across are doing it deliberately to be
awkward. not doing much help with relationships with other road users.
gareth
careful cyclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:01:17 +0100, Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
Where is this, Gareth? I ask because I am a pretty active cyclist on the
country lanes of Warwickshire and in the city of Coventry and I have
never seen this happen. Horses, yes. Agricultural machinery, yes. But a
significant delay caused by cyclists? no.
Roger Thorpe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:35:42 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:49:06 -0700 (PDT), gareth1946
<...@googlemail.com
<snip
I am very sorry gareth - but such views from experienced cyclists just
cannot be tolerated in this group.
You will soon be told that you are a "troll" and/or you will get the
lists of other people you are not allowed to respond to.
But my own view is, that it is very refreshing to get an honest post
like yours in this forum. Keep it up.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:14:22 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah <...@hotmail.co.uk
On 22 Apr, 18:49, gareth1946 <...@googlemail.com
Cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast. I'm not saying that the two
you describe are being reasonable; no reasonable cyclist likes to hold
up traffic; one thing you don't want behind your rear wheel is an
impatient motorist under pressure from the cars behind him. Riding
two abreast, pulling into single file when there's a car coming is
what I (we) do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:40:10 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:14:22 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah
<...@hotmail.co.uk
and there we go - straight in:
"Cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast" - did the PP suggest
otherwise - did he give any indication that he thought otherwise - did
he give any indication that he did not know this?
No.
But you may as well give him the first kick and make out he is a fool
- or a troll - for not knowing that (when he most likely did)
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:24:14 +0100, "Adam Lea" <...@yahoo.co.uk
If only the motorist behind would think like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:01:59 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:51:00 +0100, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
<snip
They may not have been aware of the fact that you were there.
A small pip on the horn would have alerted them to this fact.
They may (hopefully) then have given up the two abreast position until
you were past them.
You would then give them another thank-you toot.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:29:19 +0100, James <...@hotmail.com
Bloody Hell Judy, darling - you can write sense when not trolling the
psychos!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@aioe.org
Pigs can fly when judith isn't trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:51:28 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On 21 Apr 2009 12:53:26 +0100 (BST), arm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Hello Bilbo
I see that you still have the header : Organization: University of
Cambridge, England
How is the job?
What exactly is it that you do at the University?
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:20:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@spamcop.net
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:29:19 +0100, James <...@hotmail.com
Dunno, but we can live in hope I guess. Hasn't happened yet, though.
Hooting cyclists to make way for Mr Toad is simply not on, and
actually the OP's response seems to have been very much less
aggressive than judith's suggestion (and no doubt her friend nuxx
would be worse), the OP's response was calculated to be safe and not
to scare them into doing something unpredictable. If more people
drove like that I think we'd all be a lot happier. The same could not
be said of hooting - one person's "friendly toot" is another's
aggressive demand to get out of the way.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:32:19 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:20:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@spamcop.net
Chapman - you just cannot let go can you; you continually try and
wind me up.
Well it doesn't actually do so - but it confirms to your friends that
you are a knob who should be at home in the kill-file.
There was absolutely nothing aggressive in any part of that post.
Was it "small pip" or the "thank-you toot"
I will of course continue to remind people what an offensive fool you
are.
Have you advised your children to wear cycle helmets?
Any reason why you fight shy of answering that one?
Would the answer be "hypocrisy"?
--
there is no evidential basis for the idea
that wearing high visibility clothing improves cyclist safety.
Guy Chapman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:52:01 +0100, "Dave Larrington" <...@privacy.net
In news...@4ax.com,
Just zis Guy, you know? <...@spamcop.netto tell us:
A Several of years ago one pissweasel fuckpuppet in the mortal remains of an
Escort van sounded his horn, overtook and immediately turned left across my
bows into a petrol station, causing me to fall off. Naturally I was
displeased with this state of affairs, and made my opinion known to said PF,
who defended his position vigorously. Apparently it's perfectly OK to drive
through a cyclist as long as you sound your horn first.
So I killed him, and then had an ice cream.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukA *National* Socialist Government did you say, Mr. Chaplin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn <...@yahoo.com
Dave Larrington twisted the electrons to say:
Sounds perfectly reasonable ... I presume you went through his pockets
for loose change in order to fund said ice cream? :-)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:18:23 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
When reading this, I figured that it would be a very dangerous manouvre to
stop at a petrol station after harrassing a cyclist and knocking them off. I
then wondered how the driver would be able to defend his position while
blood was pissing out of his nose.
All's well that ends well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 23 Apr, 16:18, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
What amazes me is that a 5'6" tub of lard wants to climb out of their
mobility aid and pick a fight with a fit cyclist of 180lb at 5'11".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:14:17 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@spamcop.net
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:18:23 +0100, "mileburner"
<...@btinternet.com
Especially since Mr Larringtons come only in the size Extra Large.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:24:15 +0100, "Dave Larrington" <...@privacy.net
In news...@4ax.com,
Just zis Guy, you know? <...@spamcop.netto tell us:
XXXL at the moment, due to loathsome drunkenness and moral turpitude :-(
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukEmperor of ice-cream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:20:02 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 22 Apr, 20:20, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@spamcop.netwrote:
I dont agree. A vehicle user is supposed to indicate his intention to
overtake, he can only attract the cyclists' attention by the horn, if
they have no mirror. This can be done well back, followed by a right
indication. I think it is essential when there is no centre line, to
ensure a cyclist knows a following driver wishes to overtake. Without
a centre line the road could be determined as a single track. As
such, anybody on the road would think they had precedence over a
following road user and as such is entitled to use the full width of
the road in absence of oncoming vehicles/horses/pedestrians. The use
of the horn is to warn other road users of your approach, it should
not be taken as having any other meaning. In the circumstances, one
of the cyclists would look round, see the indication, give the driver
a nod and keep well in, going single file if neede to aid a clear
overtake.
If there was a collision, the driver may be asked if he signalled, a
negative response would not bode well for the driver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:39:33 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:20:02 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
<...@blueyonder.co.uk
<snip
A very sensible post - particularly the last paragraph, which is spot
on.
Similarly if the cyclist was wearing head-phones - they would be asked
if they were doing so.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:06:57 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 23 Apr, 12:39, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
And my response would be that the radio is a useful road safety aid,
the congestion reports enable me to select the most suitable route to
reduce the risk of incident. A helmet can't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:25:27 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:06:57 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
<...@blueyonder.co.uk
What - when on your bike?
I think you are now taking the piss.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 24 Apr, 00:25, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
Determination of the best route to lower potential incident frequency
is likely the greatest contribution to an experienced cyclist's
safety. A helmet can't do that.
Obviously, you dont think that cyclists should use genuine aids to
road safety. In other words, not a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:30:09 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
<...@blueyonder.co.uk
Sorry - I had not realised that a radio with earplugs was a genuine
aid to road safety for cyclists.
Does the Highway Code suggest it?
--
"Primary position" is one such short-
hand term for riding away from the kerb (if necessary stopping cars
from overtaking) in order to be safer.
RudiL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 24 Apr, 04:30, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
A radio carrying traffic reports has always been an aid to road safety
and has received government endorsement. To carry a ghetto blaster on
my shoulder whilst riding my bike would rightly attract the attention
of the local plod for I would not be in full control of my machine.
An earphone is perfectly acceptable way to listen to the radio
outdoors and I can hear much more with an earphone on than a driver
hermetically sealed inside their air-conditioned BMW and I am much
more aware of my surroundings in general. The wearing of a helmet on
the other hand restricts my vision when needing to get my head down
into the wind, so therefore is unsuitable for its intended use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:46:10 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
<...@blueyonder.co.uk
I think that you are taking the piss.
Please explain the circumstances where a cyclist can say it is a
genuine aid to their road safety.
(I notice that you ignored what I said : "cyclist was wearing
head-phones" to now a single "earphone" as you clutch at straws -
good try)
--
"Primary position" is one such short-
hand term for riding away from the kerb (if necessary stopping cars
from overtaking) in order to be safer.
RudiL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 24 Apr, 10:46, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
I have already explained, selection of most appropriate route
regarding traffic levels and have explained I only use a single open
earpiece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:58:22 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
<...@blueyonder.co.uk
I am sorry - but you are talking bollocks.
Have you ever heard any announcements on the radio whilst riding your
bike which enabled you to take safer routes? - please share them with
us.
"And news is just coming in that the High Street is very busy this
Monday morning - cyclists in particular are warned that the traffic
levels for cyclists is now reaching danger level. Please take the
alternative route of South St, West St, and North St"
"News is just coming in that the numbers of cyclists on South St, West
St, and North St is now reaching dangerous saturation levels. Will
all cyclists please turn round and go home. The roads are too
dangerous for you"
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:46:44 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 26 Apr, 12:58, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
Yes, everyday, the local BBC station gives local traffic information,
detailed reports at half past the hour. The 8:30am bulletin is the
most useful when travelling towards town. There are three general
routes I can take. If there is a hold up detailed on the route I am
on, especially when due to an accident, I divert to another route. I
have diverted three times this year due to the 8:30 bulletin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:12:24 +0100, Tom Anderson <...@urchin.earth.li
Textbook so far!
I think i'd find this a bit uncomfortable. When a car is passing me, i
like it to do it quickly, because i'd far rather have a car in front of me
than beside me.
Having a car pull up beside me slowly is also very atypical, and so i'd be
busily worrying why it was doing that - is the driver about to wind down
the window and shout at me, throw something at me, shoot me, run me off
the road, turn the Lighthouse Family on the radio up *really loud*, etc?
I don't think you need to worry too much about making your presence known;
i can't imagine they wouldn't have known you were there. On a bike, you
can hear things around you rather well, and cars are really rather loud,
so they must have heard you. They might not have acknowledged you, but
perhaps they didn't see any reason to.
I think i'd have preferred you to pull out, holding the same speed, and
when in the other lane, accelerate to the speed limit, or twice my speed,
whichever is lower (on the grounds that if i'm happy passing objects at my
speed, then i ought to be happy having objects pass me at that speed!).
Sounds good.
I strongly agree. Well, no, i don't - to me, a horn is quite unambiguous,
and it means "OI!", usually with a subtext of "YOU UTTER SHIT!" or "GET
OUT OF MY WAY!", or both. It never means "Hello! I am here! Just letting
you know i'm here!".
I have a similar problem with my bell. Sometimes, i just want to make sure
pedestrians know i'm there, but they all seem to interpret a ding on the
bell as a "GET OUT OF MY WAY, FOOT-WALKING SCUM!", and respond either by
jumping out of the way or getting in a huff. Luckily, i also have the
option of using the Mk 1 human larynx, although that has difficulties of
its own too.
Good thinking.
See above. Cyclists know you're there, unless you have some kind of
stealth car.
I guess there is a question as to whether you could have waited for a bit
to get to a wider bit of road - thirty seconds would have given you 200 -
250 metres at that speed, a minute would have given you half a mile. If
not, if you knew the road was narrow for miles and miles (and that you
weren't just racing towards a traffic jam where the cyclists would
overtake you again anyway), then passing on the narrow road is fair
enough, and you gave them as much room as was possible.
There might be, i don't know, but if there is, that sounds like it's
mistaken to me. They weren't taking up any more room than a car, after
all.
tom
--
curry in a sack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:44:07 +0100, "Mr Benn" <...@%.%%
"Tom Anderson" <...@urchin.earth.li...
Cyclists are entitled to take up to as much road width as a "cager" would
use. They were simply exercising their rights to occupy the road
(regardless of their own safety).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:36:15 -0500, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:12:24 +0100, Tom Anderson <...@urchin.earth.li
Nothing about "if faster traffic is being held up" wrt to two-abreast.
The HC is online and it is dead easy to look these things up. It does
say you should "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when
riding around bends". But then it also says I should wear a helmet and
light/fluorescent clothing.
As far as I am concerned if the bikes are not taking up any more room than a
car would then there is no problem.
--
Andy Leighton ="The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:16:42 +0100, "Mr Benn" <...@%.%%
"Andy Leighton" <...@azaal.plus.com...
Showing consideration to other road users applies both ways between cyclists
and other road users. It is valuable to remember this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:04:05 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
"Tom Anderson" <...@urchin.earth.li...
Yebbut, there is a difference between a smooth glide past at say 10mph more
and slicing by at 40mph more.
Or ask for directions, recognise me and want to say hi...
The horn *always* means "Hello I am here, just letting you know that" and
should not be intrepreted any differently. If the cyclist has a strong
headwind they sometimes cannot hear a car creep up and remain at a safe
distance (30, 40 metres behind). As a cyclist I would prefer the driver to
give a friendley beep at 100m behind just to tell me they are there. Then I
can pull over and wave them by and they might not even need to slow down.
You are too sensitive. The bell is an audible warning that also means "Hello
I am here, just letting you know that", if anyone interprets that
differently it is their problem entirely. But like the driver who gets
alongside you and gives a two second blast of the horn, the cyclist who gets
right up close to a ped before they "ping" is not really showing proper use
of the audible warning device.
Unfortunately this is also done by aggressive impaitient drivers who are a
two feet from your back wheel.
Sounds like they were just being twats. It's nice to ride two abreast, its
sociable and you can chat, but if the road is narrow it is only courteous to
let traffic pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:30:19 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.uk
"mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
There is no such thing as a "friendly beep". Horns are generally only
supplied with one setting - which is too loud for close quarter application
to uncaged ears. Loud noises can be physicaly painful and I consider a horn
used at close range to be an assault.
Given that horns are simple mechanical devices it's the square wave emission
that is the real bugbear. With electronics, a clean sound is easily possible
and an envelope capable of being interpreted as "friendly"ought to be simple
to conceive. For instance, a horn driven by a bulb produces a gently rising
and falling envelope and the waveform varies in character as the flow
changes - might a vintage sound convey a less aggressive message?
A tap produces the so called "friendly" sound and a hold produces the
conventional nasty sound.
Done with sufficient distance to attenuate the sound is ok. I think judging
that sort of distance is too difficult a concept for most people so best
just to say - don't bother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:03:10 +0100, Tom Anderson <...@urchin.earth.li
True - hence my 'twice my speed or the speed limit' suggestion.
Two other things i really, really wouldn't want someone to do while
driving a car half a metre from my handlebars at speed.
This is simply wishful thinking. The rules say that's how the horn should
be used, but it is most certainly not how horns are used, and thus it's
not what horns actually mean.
Oh, well as long as it's a friendly beep rather than an aggressive beep,
fine. Could you enlighten me as to how to tell the difference?
The headwind point is interesting, i admit. If it was sufficiently strong,
it would down out the noise of a car behind you, plus it would mean you
were going really slowly, and thus would be involved in more passing. I'm
still skeptical that a beep would be necessary, though.
Utter nonsense. The meaning of a symbol is that attributed to it by the
majority, regardless of any pronouncement by authority; in this case,
that's "get out of my way". Arguing that a bell only means "i'm here"
because that's what the HC says is like saying "gay" only means "happy and
carefree" because that's what (a suitably old edition of) the OED says, ie
wrong.
True, and as Clive observed too, maybe this is not such a good thing to
do.
tom
--
Many of us adopted the File's slang as our own, feeling that we'd found a
tangible sign of the community of minds we'd half-guessed to be out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 20 Apr 2009 14:47:54 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
In article <...@urchin.earth.liTom Anderson <...@urchin.earth.li
Yes.
However, it's difficult to know what to advise a driver who is
convinced that the cyclists in front is unaware of them, when the
cyclist needs to be.
If we imagine for a moment a situation similar to the OP's, with a
pair of cyclists two abreast on a straight clear road but one too
narrow for the driver to pass safely while they're abreast, and where
the cyclists for whatever reason don't move into single file.
The driver needs to make the cyclists aware of their presence, and -
to be honest - of the (potential) problem.
Length is a big part of it. A very short use of the horn has a very
different meaning, I feel. Drivers use short horn blasts to make each
other aware of things, too (eg "you've not spotted that the light has
changed") and even sometimes to thank each other.
I agree that the predominant (ab)use of the horn makes this
problematic and when driving I would try to avoid the horn if feasible
for that reason. But I think revving the engine (even briefly) is
worse.
In another thread in this group, several posters report riding in the
countryside while listening to music. It seems entirely plausible
that a minority of cyclists might remain unaware of a car unless
they'd looked. (Note that some cyclists are no doubt deaf!)
Yes.
On the other hand when I cycle in Cambridge I find that what I regard
as a polite and timely ring of my bell often has the desired effect
(of making other people, usually pedestrians, aware of me) without
causing any aggro.
If anything I find that the bell is insufficiently effective if I need
to do more than merely say `I'm here, no cause for alarm, just don't
leap out at me'. If I mean `excuse me, I'd like to get past you' I
have to shout out `excuse me'.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <...@chiark.greenend.org.ukThese opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:36:58 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
"Ian Jackson" <...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
Q. How do I make my presence known?
A. Sound horn or flash lights, whichever is most appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:02:53 +0100, "Clive George" <...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
"mileburner" <...@news.motzarella.org...
Strongly disagree. As Ian says, in practice the signal implied by the horn
has been subverted by decades of misuse.
There should be no need for a car driver to make their presence known - if
they're overtaking, they'll be doing so with sufficient space that wobbles
etc will be safe.
Regardless of your statements about strong winds and flat roads, I've never
had the horn sounded at me by a vehicle I didn't already know was there.
(Side story - a couple of months ago I had a car coming towards me, slowing
and flashing its lights. So I stopped to find out the problem - but they
carried on. So I turned round and caught them up at their house to ask what
it was about. "Sheep on the road" - which was a helpful answer. Pity I had
absolutely no way of knowing that since they didn't stop in the first
place...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:24:09 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
"Clive George" <...@posted.plusnet...
True it has. But it seems to have now become a very British overly polite
thing that you never sound your horn at anyone (unless it is in anger). In
Turkey the total opposite is true and that everyone sounds their horn at
every possible moment. All (yes all) overtaking is preceeded with a toot of
the horn. No one gets upset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:36:49 +0100, "Clive George" <...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
"mileburner" <...@news.motzarella.org...
I'd say it's not due to politeness, but anger - it's evolved to mean that
over here.
And if this was turkey.rec.cycling, that would be relevant. But it isn't, so
it isn't. :-)
(Which do you think has the safer roads?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:52:37 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
"Clive George" <...@posted.plusnet...
The UK. No doubt whatsoever :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:31:56 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
"Tom Anderson" <...@urchin.earth.li...
Sure! I freindly beep is short and done at a distance, and sometimes twice
as in "beep-beep" (a bit like Roadrunner). A more aggressive beep is longer
and is usually done at close range. HTH.
A lot of my cycling is on flat roads with strong winds. Sometimes the first
you hear of passing cars is as they pass. I can't see how a distant toot of
the horn could be anything but useful (to me anyway). Of course if I were to
interpret use of the horn as "get out of my way or else I will run you down"
I might not like it.
Like I say, if that's how the peds interpret it it is entirely their
problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:14:43 +0100, Tom Anderson <...@urchin.earth.li
Helps about as much as the legendary engrish driver's manual:
When passenger of foot heave in sight, tootle the horn. Trumpet him
melodiously at first, but if he still obstacles your passage then tootle
him with vigor.
tom
--
wicked wicked jungle is massive i said wicked wicked jungle is massive
well big up cos this is the incredible genral -- fabien, sniffunsnuffun
town(scotland)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:56:23 -0500, Mike the unimaginative <...@nospam.here
"mileburner" <...@news.motzarella.org:
snip
This type of 'beeping' used to be very common in France and Belgium and I
found it very useful. Certainly more of it could be helpful on rural roads
here, but it needs to be done carefully and only when considered necassary.
(ie the purpose of the horn is to let other road users know of your
presence - it's not an audible virility symbol)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:30:14 +0100, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
The fact that it's atypical doesn't mean it's a bad thing. If anything, cars
passing too fast, too close, seems to get a very bad press in here. The way
I see it, you're either fast and clear, or slow and near.
If you think about in terms of time, less than 2m of car had drawn alongside
at the slower speed before I accelerated. From the point where the bumper is
drawing level with the rear wheels (which I assume the cyclist would be
aware of), to the window being alongside the cyclist, maybe 3m of overlap at
the slow speed. A couple of seconds or so to establish the overlap before
pulling away. It's not as if the car was lingering alongside, being
menacing. By the time he's looked, seen it, and said to himself, "okay,
what's it doing", the engine's powering up and it's off into the distance. I
don't think there was time to busily worry about anything.
Does Radio 3 count as 'scary'? :)
I already had to slow down because I had to wait until everyone was around
the corner before I could consider overtaking, so I was following behind at
cyclist speed. The slow speed was mainly to keep the passing speed down - if
the cyclist had wiggled and fallen against the car, the speed differential
was enough for the risk of injury to be minimal. Nowhere near enough room to
pass at, say, 40mph. For me as the car driver, not enough time to make
accurate steering corrections. For both those reasons, I just wouldn't have
felt comfortable passing at +20mph with the space that was available.
Moreover, considering I was already following at their speed, it would
probably have been more alarming to them if I suddenly accelerated while
still behind them, to then pass at a 'normal' speed.
Would you have interpreted that in this way? Would a throttle blip behind
you tell you more about what's going on than a horn?
It's got too much red and not enough seats to be a stealth car. :)
No traffic jam ahead. About a mile of twisty road to cover with very few
spots suitable for overtaking. Compared to others, this spot was probably
marginally narrower, but with better visibility (there are two other spots
that might be usable, but they're shorter straights with left-handers at the
ends - hedges both sides all the way on this road, and it's very hard to
look across the fields to see if anything's coming).
Had a look in the HC about two abreast on narrow roads - there is. Not law,
but HC 'rules'. They may not have been taking up any more room than a car,
but they were travelling much slower - which is presuambly what's behind the
rule. The HC also says not to ride two abreast round bends. Having thought
about that, they really shouldn't have been two abreast around the left
hander - for oncoming traffic, visibility isn't great (hedges), and the lack
of road markings means that people sometimes drift over to the middle when
taking it as a right-hander. Could have been very unpleasant for the
rightmost cyclist if something was coming the other way.
--
Wally
http://www.wally.myby.co.uk
Stress: You wake up screaming and realise you haven't fallen asleep yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:28:42 +0100, "Clive George" <...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
"Wally" <...@giganews.com...
S'pose I really ought to comment on this, since it's quite important. The
use of the horn would typically imply the driver is a tosser, so yes, not
using it tells you something. Throttle blip tells me in that situation the
driver is not necessarily as good at changing gears and anticipating road
conditions as they may think - since you could see there wasn't any passing
opportunity, you could have done your gearchange when you'd slowed down,
which wouldn't require the blip. It also tells me the driver thinks they're
good, which is probably a reasonable thing - they're likely to at least try
and get any passing manouevre done sensibly.
Mostly however you don't need to do anything special to notify cyclists of
your presence - cars are quite noisy enough. Would you use horn/throttle
blip behind a horse rider? Most people wouldn't - they seem to understand
that their car isn't actually a stealth vehicle, and actually take as much
care as possible to be quiet. You can do the same with cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:55:28 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:28:42 +0100, "Clive George"
<...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
Fascinating - pipping the horn to warn another road user of your
presence makes you a tosser. Is this from Cyclecraft?
What else is the horn for please?
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:14:04 +0100, JNugent <...@noparticularplacetogo.com
It's for blasting outside your mate's house 22:45 so he'll hurry up and get
out of the shower and get dressed because you're bloomin' well waiting to get
out on the town, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:21:32 +0100, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
I rev match all the time - it's how I drive. I had slowed in 3rd, and
rev-matched into 2nd to give me better engine breaking should I need to use
acceleration sense to control my distance to the cyclists, and to give me
better instantly-available torque should I need to accelerate. He who
controls his speed on the throttle does so more smoothly and more
immediately than he who flips his foot between the accelerator and brake
pedals and does last-minute clutch-slip changes.
Are cycles likely to rear up in fright at the sound of a horn?
--
Wally
http://www.wally.myby.co.uk
Stress: You wake up screaming and realise you haven't fallen asleep yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:07:26 +0100, "Clive George" <...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
"Wally" <...@giganews.com...
I'd just have slowed down leaving space such that I wouldn't need such
fine-tuning of speed. Change into appropriate gear when required, without a
relaxed accelerator. Probably have ended up in second behind the riders, but
without needing to emit unnecessary noise.
What's that got to do with it? The fact that you can treat horses reasonably
implies you can do the same to cyclists. So do so - easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:23:17 +0100, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
Do you know what 'acceleration sense' is?
I wouldn't beep the horn at a horse because it might rear up in fright.
Since a cycle isn't a horse, but an inanimate object, the question is
irrelevant given that the context is cycles, and not horses. Others seem to
think that there may be value in the judicious use of the horn at a suitable
distance to let a cyclist know that a car is approaching. Someone mentioned
a distance of 100m, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
--
Wally
http://www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:35:47 +0100, Martin <...@virgin.net
The cycle may be inanimate, but the cyclist is animate.
My experience of motorists sounding their horns at me is that they are
usually used in anger because I am in their way, not to tell me that
they are there. Because of this I associate using horns at cyclists as a
symptom of bad driving.
I realise that there are some considerate motorists who will use their
horns as the horn is meant to be used, but they are in a minority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:52:40 +0100, "Clive George" <...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
"Wally" <...@giganews.com...
Yes. I've not tried to assume you're a novice driver - please don't make
that assumption about me. I have dropped hints about the levels of knowledge
we're talking about.
That's the wrong reason. You shouldn't beep the horn at a horse because it
might take fright. The results of that should not be your main
consideration - though it may be used to explain why you shouldn't do it to
people only capable of understanding what happens to them, not what happens
to others. You should be not causing fright even if the results were a
raised eyebrow - the act of causing that fright is rude.
You seem to misunderstand. In both cases you should be avoiding causing
unnecessary fright.
100m is quite a long way away. I think it would probably cause more
confusion than it helps alleviate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:28:12 +0100, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
Rather than slow down to the appropriate speed and then change gear, I rev
match early to be sure that I'm already in a suitable gear during the last
phase of the speed reduction. I will also drop a gear, as described earlier,
to put the engine into a different part of the power band to give me better
flexibility at the right foot. I don't agree with the general principle of
slowing down to the appropriate speed for the hazard/maneuvre and then
changing gear - to do so means that one has just been in the wrong gear.
That's a moral argument to do with not frightening horses.
Eh?
Nice lecture on ethics.
The matter at hand, so far as I can see, is road safety. There's a narrow
hump-backed bridge a few miles earlier, where the limit point on approach to
the brow is a handful metres - use of the horn to warn possible (unseen)
oncoming traffic is imperative. If there was a horse in the field nearby,
should I refrain from using the horn, or would that count as causing
necessary fright? How about for more general situations on the road where
one would use the horn? How far away does a horse in a field have to be
before it's okay to use the horn? Or at what point do conditions on the road
requiring the horn become more important than not giving a horse a fright?
Does this only apply to horses and eyebrow-twitching cyclists, or should one
also avoid frightening animals that end up on dinner plates? If not, is it
okay to frighten horses in countries that eat them? (Are there any countries
that eat cyclists?)
Maybe that confusion stems from the apparent experience - or
interpretation - of some of those posting here, that motorists use their
horns to communicate some sort of aggressive or dominant message of the 'get
out of my way, you tree-hugging, lentil-gobbling pedal jockey' variety. If
that's the case, then maybe cyclists need to remind themselves that the horn
is there for the purpose of informing other road users that the horn-pusher
is (or soon will be) sharing road space with them. An adjustment of
mindset - a giving of space to the idea that some motorists at least may be
using the horn as intended. It's a similar argument to the one that says
increased cycle use on the roads will make the roads safer for cyclists by
changing the expectations and mindset of drivers.
--
Wally
http://www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 22 Apr 2009 11:26:19 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
In article <...@giganews.comWally <...@dotat.atdot
I'm very rarely hooted at but when I am it usually carries that
meaning. Drivers don't need to hoot at me to let me know they're
there because I'll have already seen them - and have clearly looked
right at them to try to make eye contact.
In case you think I'm imagining this interpretation: that kind of
hooting is usually accompanied by tailgating, revving the engine,
close passing and deliberate cutting up, rude gestures, aggressive
shouts (`get on the pavement' and `you're not a motorbike' are
favouries), etc.
I agree that that's what the horn ought to mean. But if I'm driving
and considering hooting at someone, I'll want to be sure that it won't
be misinterpreted as arseholery.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <...@chiark.greenend.org.ukThese opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:03:43 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On 22 Apr 2009 11:26:19 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Arrogant? - just a bit.
Really? - amazing do you have a Google camera on your head?
Alternatively:
Head up arse - has eyes up arse.
Yes I see what you mean
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:41:59 +0100, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
Clive said...
"That's the wrong reason. You shouldn't beep the horn at a horse because it
might take fright. The results of that should not be your main
consideration ..."
I said (paraphrasing)...
I couldn't give a toss about how the horse feels about it. The results of
the animal being spooked are *exactly* what should be my main consideration.
[Ergo, don't spook the horse.] I asked, "How far away does a horse in a
field have to be before it's okay to use the horn?". The consequences of the
animal being spooked are what matters. Unless we're supposed to have a
specific sympathy towards horses, then what about frightening animals that
we slaughter and eat?
--
Wally
http://www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 21 Apr, 01:23, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
Have a look in "DRIVING", I think 75m s indicated behind a cyclist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 23 Apr, 04:41, Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
A copy of 'The Driving Manual', an updated 'Driving' does not show the
diagram I was looking for. Within 'Roadcraft' 1977 is a section on
horn use.
=======================================
Horn
15 The horn should be sounded only when it is really necessary. No
hard and fast rules can be laid down but there are certain occasions
when the use of the horn is justified even though every other
precaution has been taken.
(a) To attract the attention of another road user who is obviously
vulnerable. Pedestrians and cyclists, particularly children, are
usually involved.
(b) When approaching a hazard when the view is very limited, such
as ablind bend.
(c) Prior to overtaking, bearing in mind the following:
(i) Is the driver in front aware he is about to be
overtaken.
(ii) Can he be given plenty of room in case he should deviate
slightly.
(iii) Will unexpexted overtaking at speed be likely to
disturb him.
16 Experience, intuition and the possibility of adopting an
alternative driving plan must be the criteria upon which a driver
decides to sound, or not to sound, the horn. In heavy traffic
occasions for using the horn are rare, primarily because speeds are
moderate and other action can be taken in good time.
17 The horn warning should be confined as far s possible to one note,
either short or long, according to traffic conditions and the type of
road user for whom it is sounded. Figures 7a and b show some common
occasions for the use of the short or long note.
18 Horns should not be sounded in an aggressive or demanding manner,
but always courteously, giving plenty of time for other road users to
react.
========================================
Figure 7a shows an urban environment with what appears to be a coach
stopped on the left and a bus at a stop on the right. There is a
"steady cyclist" of which the car passes without signal on the single
carriageway, the cyclist is a metre from the kerb, the car is 1.5
metres from the cyclist and within 0.5m of the hazard line marking the
road centre. An "erratic cyclist" is between 1.5m and 2m from the
kerb, a signal is given 7m behind him, a short horn note. A short
horn note is also given from just behind the coach and a short horn
note is given when drawing parallel with the bus because of alighting
passengers at the rear.
The more a driver uses the horn, the better he becomes at precisely
when is the correct time to use it and for how long. I consider a
short note to be 0.5 second and a long note 1.5 seconds or more.
Figure 7b shows only the car and the coach which may or not be
stationary at the roadside, the car driver sounds a long note at a
coach length behind the coach. The car passes inside the hazard line
with less than a metre clearance with the coach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:05:07 -0500, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:25:57 -0700 (PDT),
Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
This is what I don't get. How should I react? Surely I should keep on
riding my bike at a steady pace on its current course (that is if the
current course is along the road) - that is after all what the HC says
to do. I would have done that anyway without being beeped at. So why
the beep?
The only people who have used their horn on me when I'm cycling have
been idiots (usually from about a couple of yards) and once an impatient
bus-driver who failed to appreciate why I might want to be in primary
position after just exiting a mini-roundabout and seeing parked cars
about 30 yards up the road.
--
Andy Leighton ="The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 23 Apr, 09:05, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
First, the courteous manner of sounding the horn is with plenty of
time for the signaller to take alternative actions and for the other
road user to modify their actions if necessary. If done in plenty of
time it does not sound discourteous. 99 times out of 100 (or more) as
a cyclist being overtaken you probably wouldn't need to make any
modification to your action and continuing with the same course at the
same speed is the most advantageous. The horn signal is to notify
other road users that you are there. This would hopefully mean a
cyclist ahead of a motorist will not stop in the middle of the road
with a following vehicle closing on them.
The motorist may choose to follow if he deems there is insufficient
space to pass safely without causing another road user to alter their
speed or direction. As a responsible road user, you, as the cyclist,
should make some effort to assist the following faster vehicle to
overtake by moving to the left and stopping if necessary on a single
track road and some narrow single carriageways. It is the only way
for a following vehicle to give you the recognised 1.5m clearance. It
is in your intrest to help the afflicted because one day they will run
you down if you continue to cause unecessary delay. I am happy with
1m clearance at most speeds encountered.
The third rule of the road is to consider every other road user to be
a bloody fool who does not follow the highway code or have any spatial
awareness.
The horn is also used before the start of the acceleration phase of
the overtaking manoeuvre, it is basically a request that you maintain
your position and do not accelerate thus ensuring a clean safe
overtake in the best intrests of all concerned. Unfortunately some
drivers see this as an encouragement to race, but that's a story I'm
not going to tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:41:02 -0500, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:03:21 -0700 (PDT),
Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
So what if they do. They may need to do so to turn right (if there
is a stream of traffic coming the opposite way) for example. The
driver should be able to stop in time. Also cars may need to do
the same. Do you sound your horn at every car you come up behind?
The towns would be a cacophony of noise if everyone used horns when
they came up behind vehicles and pedestrians on the road.
May choose? As the other choice would be to try and bully the other
road user off the road I hope they do so choose.
Nope. I will use the roads as I am entitled to. On single-track roads
I do pull into the passing places to let cars through. On narrow roads
I move closer (but not extremely close) to the side of the road when
I deem it safe.
This applies to overtaking cars and other vehicles too? You are very
keen on noise aren't you?
--
Andy Leighton ="The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:55:23 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:41:02 -0500, Andy Leighton
<...@azaal.plus.com
I believe that a mirror may be mandatory. Therefore a motorist does
not have to pip at a motor vehicle to say "I am here".
A number of people have now said that it is stupid to pip to a cyclist
as of course they can always hear you and will be aware of your
presence.
I did not realise that.
I will stop pipping in order to courteously draw my attention to the
cyclist.
--
"Primary position" is one such short-
hand term for riding away from the kerb (if necessary stopping cars
from overtaking) in order to be safer.
RudiL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 24 Apr, 10:55, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
Garbage, you cannot tell whether the cyclist is partially deaf or has
an ear infection or is affected by wind noise or can actually
differentiate a single following vehicle from other motor vehicles.
Don't read into something that isn't there such as whether someone
else can here your modern motor ticking over at 800rpm at twenty
paces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 24 Apr, 08:41, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
Legally, cars are fitted with mirrors, hence a visual indication is
sufficient, position explains a lot. So no I don't sound the horn
unecessarily.
I'm being realistic and honest. Sometimes a driver makes an error of
judgement, whatever the cause.
Make sure any dependants are taken care of.
Experience shows the system to work. Without signalling, the intended
overtakee will sometimes move out into the path of the overtaker.
Following a regular system means I am unlikely to be at fault in the
unlikely event of an incident. I regularly overtake on two lane
single carriageways, employing a tried and tested system makes the
risk of mistake less than an error in following.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:30:13 -0500, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:50:37 -0700 (PDT),
Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
So you disagreee with the best advice to cyclists then? Which is to
maintain primary position when you feel your safety would otherwise
be impaired by cars trying to squeeze past.
I would say that my attitude is quite reasonable. The single-track
roads I know have pretty frequent passing places.
The straying into a following vehicle's path is not my experience at all.
As I have already said I maintain a steady vector and speed doesn't
apply in my case. In fact I think that you agreed that most people
maintain a steady vector and speed. I would still imagine that if you
are in a town or city where there are substantial amounts of bikes you
will be leaning on your horn for much of the time you spend behind the
wheel.
I'm not sure I would bank a lot of money on that. Also as a regular
system it fails as you MUST NOT use your horn during night and early
morning (until 0730) on most roads within town anyway by law (at least
for your purpose).
--
Andy Leighton ="The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:00:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 26 Apr, 21:30, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
I believe in survival first, not making a statement. What's this
"primary position"?
There are exceptions.
Not when I can guarantee I can give 2m room, I dont then use the
horn. When there are side roads to the right I'm a bit wary, I have
seen too many cyclists dart across the road without a glance to the
rear.
Of a night, the use of headlights is advantageous over the horn. The
use of a horn on a moving vehicle is not permitted from 11:30pm -
7:30am The opportunity for safe overtakes becomes more limited of a
night, and generally less traffic means the necessity is reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:59:37 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.uk
"Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
Do you cycle?
You appear to have passed carefully. The cyclist had several options but by
staying in position obviously felt comfortable with the space. Whereas the
cyclist is usually the passive party in an overtake (hence, drivers please
pass wide) it seems he (or she) made himself the active party in this
situation. Posting here proves it got your attention and that it had the
desired effect. Doesn't look like a cause for concern. (Though 2 abreast is
not a position I like to linger in with vehicles around.)
Don't take BS from judith that the cyclist might have been unaware of your
presence. If you spent time cycling on quiet roads you would understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:48:37 +0100, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
I have a garage bike, so, no. :)
I already read this group regularly. Their apparent insistence in
maintaining the two abreast arrangement was what I found a little odd.
Although it's not the main drag, it can attract some traffic during rush
hour (I was on my way home from work). Locals that know the back roads use
it regularly to avoid the jams. It's also a route between two industrial
estates and has the odd heavy lorry on it.
I have cycled in the past, both in city and countryside, and I think I have
a reasonable idea of the spacial awareness that a cyclist can have in terms
of what traffic is doing around him.
--
Wally
http://www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:08:12 +0100, "Clive George" <...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
"Wally" <...@giganews.com...
That's ok then - you'll understand the cyclists were almost certainly
entirely aware of you, throttle blipping or no. Even tyres make enough noise
to give a good idea of proximity and position of a car.
I'm with Tom on the overtake generally - it may be that your description
doesn't match what you did terribly well, but the general idea of getting on
with it is appropriate. Overtakers who dawdle unnecessarily are a pain, and
you appear to have been doing so. I've experienced people doing the "drawing
alongside" thing - it doesn't help. At that point you're already doing the
most dangerous bit, but without the required speed to complete the manouevre
as quickly as is sensibly possible. A couple of seconds _is_ enough time to
start worrying "why is that driver faffing so?".
Re your HC bit - would it have been safe to overtake them had they been in
line as they went round the bend? Your description of it implies not, so
staying 2 abreast sounds like the correct course of action.
One thing you could do is post where all this happened - google maps aerial
view is very good these days, giving an idea of things such as how wide the
road is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:51:30 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:08:12 +0100, "Clive George"
<...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
<snip
Anchor Lee has a nice line on this:
If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones,
you must have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway.
(Anchor Lee)
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:10:30 +0100, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
The reason I drew alongside at a slow relative speed was because I felt that
that was safer than accelerating from behind and trying to thread the car
through at a higher speed. At a higher speed, any needed steering
corrections would have been exaggerated - for the couple of seconds drawing
alongside, my concentration was fully on positioning the car as near as I
could manage to the right-hand verge while keeping an eye on the distance to
the cyclist. As already mentioned, there was also the consideration that, if
the outer cyclist did veer off course at the most inoppportune moment, any
impact with the car would have been at walking pace.
Not sure if you mean overtaking them on the bend or not, which I wouldn't
have done, regardless of how they were cycling. If they had been in single
file at the place where I did overtake, riding dead-centre of the left-hand
lane, then the overtake would have been easier to do at a higher speed. That
would have given me a mirror-to-handlebar distance of more like 1.5m. The
extra length of there being two cyclists wouldn't have been a problem.
--
Wally
http://www.wally.myby.co.uk
Stress: You wake up screaming and realise you haven't fallen asleep yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:56:46 +0100, "Clive George" <...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk
"Wally" <...@giganews.com...
Sounds like it was all a bit close and possibly too close to overtake.
So your mention of them being 2 abreast as they went round the bend was
irrelevant. Glad that's cleared up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:30:17 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 20 Apr, 23:10, "Wally" <...@dotat.atdot
Fast walker? "They were moving at a decent pace (15-20mph), were
cycling steadily, held their course and position on the road, and
continued to do so as I passed. "
Which is the sort of distance needed when available. Passing 30mph
faster would not be a problem with this clearance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:12:35 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:59:37 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.ukwrote:
<snip
In which case if the cyclists WERE aware that there was someone
behind - perhaps one of them should have held back to allow the
overtake - then you could ignore the light pip suggestion.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:49:17 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.uk
"Judith Smith" <...@live.co.ukYou snip too selectively. They may have felt there was enough room for
comfort (or escape space). The OP said there was enough room for approachng
cars to pass, which the cyclists would also have noticed, and so it follows
there must be enough room to be overtaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:33:59 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:49:17 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.ukwrote:
<snip
Good - so if there is enough room for an approaching cars - there MUST
be enough room for a cyclist to be overtaken.
Is that a useful rule of thumb - perhaps it should be more widely
publicised. I will try and do so.
I think that is much more sense that trying to judge say half a car's
width and it's also letting the approaching cars work it out for you!!
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:07:35 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 23 Apr, 23:33, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
pea brain. What does the following driver do about the oncoming
cars? Drive through them? No, he ends up driving through the
cyclist, a little bit softer. Which is why a cyclist should block a
following vehicle if it would be unsafe to pass. Many motorists think
they can squeeze thrpough, when of course the tin plate does not get
squozen, but the more conforming flesh and bone of the cyclist. It
needs to be made obvious to the less spatially aware that it is not
possible to pass with safety by making it impossible to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:10:34 +0100, "mileburner" <...@btinternet.com
"Nick L Plate" <...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
No, just wait for a big enough gap in the oncoming traffic.
Which is why a cyclist should block a
Car drivers do it all the time, they intentionally block the traffic from
overtaking by sitting in the middle of the lane. Even getting past on a
motorbike would be risky unless you wait for a break in the oncoming
traffic.
If there is enough width to lane-share then stick to the left, it there
isn't, don't share the lane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:21:31 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:07:35 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
<...@blueyonder.co.uk
Ah - are you saying that DavidR's advice was incorrect.
when he said:
"The OP said there was enough room for approaching
cars to pass, which the cyclists would also have noticed, and so it
follows
there must be enough room to be overtaken."
I do wish you cyclists could get your act together.
--
"Primary position" is one such short-
hand term for riding away from the kerb (if necessary stopping cars
from overtaking) in order to be safer.
RudiL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 24 Apr, 04:21, Judith Smith <...@live.co.ukHere is your text
"Good - so if there is enough room for an approaching cars - there
MUST
be enough room for a cyclist to be overtaken."
"Is that a useful rule of thumb - perhaps it should be more widely
publicised. I will try and do so."
"I think that is much more sense that trying to judge say half a car's
width and it's also letting the approaching cars work it out for
you!!"
You are intent on taking the statement which refers to a specific
incident that hypothetically a car could pass from the opposing
direction as meaning that a following driver may overtake because an
opposing vehicle can pass whether or not that opposing vehicle is
there. Without the background information the statement you propose
to publicise is ridiculous, as you keep on appearing to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:51:03 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
<...@blueyonder.co.uk
<snip
OK - I can see you are not very bright:
He said:
The OP said there was enough room for approaching
cars to pass, which the cyclists would also have noticed, and so it
follows there must be enough room to be overtaken.
I was taking the micky - because what he said was pure bollocks.
Of course that is never the case - sorry it was too subtle for you.
--
"Primary position" is one such short-
hand term for riding away from the kerb (if necessary stopping cars
from overtaking) in order to be safer.
RudiL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate <...@blueyonder.co.uk
On 24 Apr, 10:51, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
Of course you were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:24:16 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.uk
"Judith Smith" <...@live.co.uk
Moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:10:21 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:24:16 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.ukwrote:
Well I thought you were when you said it - but I didn't want to pass
judgment.
--
Whilst driving on a narrow road - if there is enough room for
approaching cars - then there must be enough room for a cyclist to be
overtaken.
DavidR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:09:48 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.uk
"Judith Smith" <...@live.co.uk
But I did not capitalise "must" and change the meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:35:47 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:09:48 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.ukwrote:
I didn't say you did - it was just my emphasis to show how stupid what
you said was.
I quite like it - it is an easy way for motorists to judge the
situation -
"If there is enough room for oncoming vehicle - then there must be
enough room for overtaking."
It could be come known as David's rule - you could become famous.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:14:19 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.uk
"Judith Smith" <...@live.co.uk
You misquote me. Twice. And your versions contain (different) sloppy typos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:51:56 +0100, Judith Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:14:19 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.ukwrote:
I have not mis-quoted you at all. I have reached logical conclusions
from what you have said and stated them - I did not say that you said
them
Here again is exactly what you said:
"The OP said there was enough room for approaching
cars to pass, which the cyclists would also have noticed, and so it
follows there must be enough room to be overtaken."
I assume that you agree that that is what you said?
What you are saying - not your exact words - but what you are saying
is:
"There was enough room for approaching cars to pass"
(as an aside - "The cyclist will have noticed this")
" it follows that there must be enough room to be overtaken."
I interpreted this as saying - "there was enough room for the
approaching car to pass - therefore there must be enough room to be
overtaken"
Rather than just saying that this is wrong - please feel free to point
out why.
I am very sorry about the different sloppy typos - please can you
point out those - they may be in my personal dictionary incorrectly -
many thanks.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:19:48 +0100, "DavidR" <...@4bidden.org.uk
"Judith Smith" <...@live.co.uk
Your record suggests this would be completely futile. How can I be sure it
is a serious request?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|