On the eggbike, turning from main street into back street. Busy town is busy right now, madly so (is there still a pandemic on atm?)
Anyway, I’m riding at walking pace as I turn in (because of number of hazards (post office depot end of day, vans, cars , ppl everywhere)
Young mother holding hand of 5yr-old (son?) steps out from between parked cars/chelsea tractors. Walks right in front of me, oblivious to surroundings/doing something with the kid’s coat sleeve/looking away from the junction she is walking across.
I’m primed and ready to stop (walking pace, as mentioned). I pull up in centre lane about 6 feet away from them. She still doesn’t see me, she seems to be fishing for car keys. I wait. She finally looks to her right:
‘OH! Sorry, you were just SO quiet’
Glad I wasn’t a Tesla.
And why turn a perfectly reasonable thread into an anti-EV thread with your last sentence?
I took it as anti idiots not looking.
At least she was apologetic.
That is all
I would like one of those but know I would abuse it
So why didn't you shout 'Ay up love, how's yer bum fer spots?'
a) Comedy
b) Warning
c) Bemused lady
The woman had priority from the OP's description, he responded correctly and gave way:
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html
"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"
And why turn a perfectly reasonable thread into an anti-EV thread with your last sentence?
🙄
Weird that’s what you got from it. OK, ‘glad I wasn’t unnamed, nominal large vehicle travelling similarly quietly amid the hubbub.’
Same sentiment, ie ‘pro-look—before/while-crossing‘ (anti-‘don’t be careless and put your kid's/your life at risk)
But yeah, I forgot Tesla etc would override*. Was just looking for word-economy and quick comparison between me and something else large and quiet.
And look where that got me! Word economy is hard 😭
*How quckly do they react to 5’ humans exiting gaps in parked cars/vans/tractors? As quickly as me at walking pace? This, again, is not to criticize EVs, but to make a point about not just listening but looking.
Have you missed my post about you complaining about someone who had priority.
She was on the road you were turning into from a main road
She was so near the junction you say she was walking across the junction
You stopped six feet short, excellent but that makes it highly likely she started to cross when you were still on the the main road.
My interpretation from information provided in your OP is that the woman had priortiy and depite that apologised.
Anyone, whatever vehicle, bicyle, EV car or nosiy car needs to take care and bear in mind who has priority in thsoe situations. You did, very good, but why complain about having complied with the highway code?
‘OH! Sorry, you were just SO quiet’
This is just another version of "I didn't see you". It has nothing to do with you. She's just not primed to think about bikes, just cars.
^ and this is why we can't have nice things.
Edukator, take a chill. It’ll all be ok!
Listen, she may well have had right of way but when she stepped out from between the Chelsea tractors (as per OP) I wasn’t aware she as going to step until she stepped out. Didn’t even have time to ring my bell as I was on the brakes/hoods slowing. I’m not ‘complaining‘ at inconvenience to me, I’m expressing frustration/concern at people not taking responsibility for their own safety, their kid’s safety, and then trying to pin it on innocent party. I know such behaviour is hardly rare but, GRARGH! Anyway. ‘so quiet‘? It was a town centre in rush hour outside of a post office depot surrounded by people, idling delivery vans, parked and and moving traffic . Couldn’t hear a pin drop if it weren’t for the swish of my tyres 😉 Bloody cyclists!
*mutter*mutter*whyareppl..?huh? *** mutter**
OKAY!
^ this has to be a troll? Mods?
In case not, and because I’m not having it:
Let me het this right, you’re offended because I used ‘a Tesla’ as an off-the-cuff example of a large quiet moving thing, and now you’re also offended because I said it was a young mother and her son that stepped out? (he was more being handled than walking tbf) ?
wtf? It could have been an old doddery guy, a group of schoolgirls/boys/kids (delete as per event) a rancorous teacher from the school down the road...could have been anyone! I’m telling a story about an event
We’re like a double act!
1. I‘ll describe what happened ie
i saw a bull in the field, and the fence was missing. I spoke to the farmer and he said it wasn’t his job
And now you can insert all of the weird, dark hidden sexist/anti-EV agendas/context and I’ll be the human strawman/patsy for your actual agenda, whatever that is? 😬
Why did you specify bull? Couldn’t you have typed ‘bovine quadraped?‘. You wouldn’t be giving the impression that men are aggressive and dangerous, would you? Hmmmm? And why specify the sex of the farmer? Are yiu saying that women can’t be farmers
We could start a youtube channel!
What does "POE" mean? I've googled it and got nothing. It's definitley not a troll. MY replies are honest and reflect my real opinions, that's not trolling. I will admit to very mild sarcasm in the words "perfectly resonable" because I didn't find it resonable.
I read the opening post and it read like a male cyclist ranting about a female pedestrian who was within her rights (which you agree with) and polite. And then threw in negative and contrary to fact criticism of electic cars (which are noisier than many ICE cars at very low speed).
And now you want the mods to intervene on your behalf.
You just rode your bike through a junction and complied with highway code rules, but for some reason used that to slag off a young mother acting within her rights, pedestrians in general and elctric cars because... . Your OP came across as anti-pedestrian, sexist and anti-EV.
Edit: I see you've removed "POE" in an edit:
I did remove poe long before I read your post. Was a long edit. I removed because I don’t think that’s the right definition, still not sure. I thought your post was a well-acted hard-to-spot trolling! What’s the word for that? Still not entirely convinced you aren’t pulling my leg as I’m a bit on the spectrum that way and often miss sarcasm/satire. If you’re not pulling my leg, then ...woaaaah.
In case the mods are watching, Malvern has completely changed his previous post with with tow edits with no indication he's edited. Everything after the first line has been added and the POE bit has been removed.
Edit: edit now admitted to.
Didn't TJ get banned for excessive arguing?
My god* this place is weird sometimes!
*or insert generic deity of your choice...
This thread is incredible.
perfectly understandable rant followed by....
"Dont be mean to Electric cars!!,.... oh right, you weren’t ..... Give me a minute and I will find something else to moan about.... hang on... oh yeah! found it! You were actually in the wrong. booyah highway code link..... .... OOhh hang on.... I think I missed one.... just realised, your a big sexist aswell - woohoo ! I win."
Anyone, whatever vehicle, bicyle, EV car or nosiy car needs to take care and bear in mind who has priority in thsoe situations. You did, very good, but why complain about having complied with the highway code?
you stay classy edukator I've come to expect no less.
*Too lates nealglovwr beat me to it ..... I made my self look stupid....I'll pick on something else to try and undermine him.....while being selective in which parts of the highway code I'll apply.
Edit: edit now admitted to.
Ye god’s, insufferable!
Now I’ve had time to look the meaning up properly since the edit window expired - I did actually mean Poe/troll after all. So consider it reinserted
^ this has to be a POE/troll? Mods?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw
The core idea of Poe's Law is that a parody of something extreme can be mistaken for the real thing, and if a real thing sounds extreme enough, it can be mistaken for a parody (all because parodies are intrinsically extreme, in case you haven't noticed it). This can also happen to someone whose picture of the opposing position is such a grotesque caricature that it renders them unable to tell parody from reality.
Willing as ever for mods/others to chime in if they think the tone of my OP sounded
anti-pedestrian, sexist and anti-EV.
Even though, I can’t be writing
a person and child ofindiscriminate gender stepped out from behind an SUV into my path and continued looking the other way. The person registered suprise at my presence, and said to me that I was ‘so quiet’ . I thought to myself ‘I’m glad that I wasn’t a long ton of quiet non-descript automobile’
Go forth with that for a game of all-gendered army-combatants 🤣
Can we organise a gender neutral group hug for Edukator?
Bloody hell, liking the Tesla brand gives one thin skin!
Yeah, people often don't look and also often become offended if you ping a bell. This is because often people are idiots.
SMIDHY doesn’t have the same ring somehow
If only the OP had a Timber bell - serious comment, I've found the gentle tinkle of mine never annoys but always alerts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
And chill .. it' s a bike forum.
Demonstration of people looking with their ears .. move along.
If only the OP had a Timber bell – serious comment, I’ve found the gentle tinkle of mine never annoys but always alerts
If it’s tinkling on smooth tarmac then I’ll be more annoyed but just as alert.
(Someone please hug edukator before he accuses me of being intolerant of/sexist/discriminatory towards outdoor-peeing)
Seriously tho, Edukator you have raised at one very good query for me:
“watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”
She/he/herm/they stepped out (I couldn't see them as they were behind the van/SUV and I was on the level and on the hoods, riding walking pace exactly because of the likelihood of unseen hazards/fast changing environment)
BUT.. she/he/herm/they WERE of course momentarily walking on the road behind the van BEFORE they stepped into my view/path. So if I had been going at a fair clip say >10mph and they stepped out into my path and someone got hurt - then it would have been my ‘fault’ by a technicality? ie they were technically ahead of me on the road (although hidden behind parked vehicles)?
In case the mods are watching, Malvern has completely changed his previous post with with tow edits with no indication he’s edited. Everything after the first line has been added and the POE bit has been removed.
Sir! Sir! Malvern Rider was naughty Sir! Tell him off!
To be fair, this is peak Edukator. Must be a slower day than normal for him.
^ this has to be a troll? Mods?
I'll bite (as a user rather than a mod) because this bollocks it's something I've been on the receiving end of.
It's flavour text. A literary device often used when recounting a story. Have you never read a book?
Compare:
"A vehicle pulled out on me"
"Some bald-headed bloke in a blue Corsa pulled out on me."
Which of these phrases best conjures up a mental image of the situation and transports you to the scene? Or would you ask why the type of car is relevant and accuse the poster of being Vauxhallist or prejudiced against the follicly challenged? It's a description of what happened.
<< Young mother holding hand of 5yr-old (son?) >>
Would you prefer "person holding hand of another person," or is that personist and we should leave the reader to guess whether they were in fact people or chimpanzees? Why haven't you picked up on the fact that the OP is also being ageist and sexist about the child?
Calling out -isms is laudable but you're just looking for an argument here.
So if I had been going at a fair clip say >10mph and they stepped out into my path and someone got hurt – then it would have been my ‘fault’ by a technicality?
Whatever your mode of transport, if you cannot stop in the distance you can see then you're going too fast. So yes, it would be your fault, not on a technicality but because you weren't riding / driving / hovercrafting appropriately to the conditions.
Good point Cougar. Prime position and walking pace past large parked things should see you ok. Although had I set off home 1-2 seconds earlier than I did - then we could have had a very near miss at best, even though I was near 2-doors out, even though I was walking pace.
Sir! Sir! Malvern Rider was naughty Sir! Tell him off!
No, "dear mods (because they've been invoked and this may have been reported), if my reply seems OTT it's because the pre-edited post I replied to wasn't so polite or reasonable so take that into account please".
I note the usual "classy" members are putting words in my mouth and dreaming up thoughts I haven't had.
If nothing else the thread has raised an interesting point about priority as Malvern recognises. He was there.
I've noted that many road users make assumptions about the behaviour of other road users that are sometimes wrong especially if they've been driving a long time. If you haven't looked at a highway code recently have a look at all the things that concern pedestrians and cyclists.
When junior learned to drive a few years back I found some things have changed quite a lot, and for the better.
She was on the road you were turning into from a main road
She was so near the junction you say she was walking across the junction
You stopped six feet short,
If he's turned into the road and still managed to stop "six feet short" then they weren't crossing the junction, they were crossing the road. It's kind of academic though, you can quote rules all you like but "I had right of way" doesn't give you the right to mow people down. The laws of the road are trumped by the laws of physics.
“watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”
Remind me, what does the sentence immediately prior to this one in THC say?
I note the usual “classy” members are putting words in my mouth and dreaming up thoughts I haven’t had.
... which with no concept of irony is exactly what you were doing to the OP in your accusations.
Well it's good to see not everyone has given up arguing.
I'll remind you what case law says, Cougar:
‘the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist’
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/19/priority-road-pedestrians-cyclists-10013140/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
In this case Malvern was a competant cyclist. You'll note I've never criticised Malvern's cycling or the decisions he made. I'm just surprised by his need to rant about it and the contents of the rant.
Anyway...Eggbike?
bike for carrying eggs, bike that lays eggs, bike made from eggs..?
I’m just amazed that no one has mentioned ’Gammons’!
Quoting law from a newspaper. ?
Rules 8 and 14 are key here as is following the green cross code.
The chronology of the ops post and your interpretation of the law as dictated in the highway code don't add up.
I’ll remind you what case law says, Cougar:
I'm well aware of the law and don't consider the Daily Mail-owned Metro to be a canonical source of such.
You’ll note I’ve never criticised Malvern’s cycling or the decisions he made.
No, you've accused him of being sexist for failing to mow down a woman rather than failing to mow down a man.
Did you miss my question, BTW?
Rather than dissing my link find something that disproves it Trail_rat (edit: and Cougar). Metro is reporting facts, if you don't agree with the facts disprove them rather than dissing the source.
Trailrat, you must have missed Malvern's posts where he agrees that the pedestrian had priority, and he is the best placed to judge. He then asks about what would have happened in the case of a collision and Judge Mauger's ruling is pretty clear. In Malvern's case the pedestrian wasn't on the phone and a child is a responsibility rather than a distraction such as a phone.
Case law tells you to take the upmost care around pedestrians because the judge is likely to find in favour of the more vulnerable road user. Malvern did just that and this is being debated on a cycling forum rather than in court because Mavern has the level to be reasonably expected of acompetant cyclist. If he had hit the two pedestrians then from his own description and appreciation of the events he would have ended up in court, and almost certainly lost the case.
Quoting law from a newspaper. ?
Plus the Highway code isn't actually law, it's just a guide, some bits of which are covered by statute (and normally referenced as such), but most isn't.
Wow. I’ve found someone more objectionable than me! This thread had been highly entertaining. And the entertaining poster still genuinely doesn’t seem to realise just how laughable they are. I don’t know whether to laugh even harder or feel sad for them.
