Re: Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:16:03 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
<spam.trap100.remove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said in
<dou6n3$t3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>The stopping distances referred to (HC 105) relate to distances between
>moving cars. to use the same rule in relation to (say) pedestrians stepping
>of pavements or seeing stealth cyclists is wrong, intellectually dishonest
>and deliberately distorting.

Bzzt! Wrong. Rule 105 makes no reference at all to moving cars. It
says you should be able to stop well within the distance you can see
to be clear. It's always said that, give or take the odd word. I
have heard Plod telling some clueless old bat who drove into a fallen
tree exactly that.

Of course, some drivers like to /interpret/ it as meaning the distance
you can't see to be occupied, or some other variant, but what it
/actually/ says is "well within the distance you can see to be clear".
It is, to my reading, quite unambiguous.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?
    ... was no wiggle room. ... >>> The stopping distances referred to relate to distances ... Rule 105 makes no reference at all to moving cars. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?
    ... >> The stopping distances referred to relate to distances ... Rule 105 makes no reference at all to moving cars. ... front on roads carrying fast traffic. ... Use a fixed point to help measure a two second gap ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)