Overtaking in the blackwall tunnel.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by maxinc

I guess I was trying to say that special circumstances (poor lighting, narrow space, fast moving objects in your peripheral vision (tunnel walls) can easily make you loose focus and misjudge your reaction. Adding an extra factor into the mix (filtering biker) could only make it worse.

It's perfectly safe and legal to go down an unlit country road at 60mph with a hedge 6" from your window in a car, I don't see difference. Still just a slip of concentration that can happen anyway.

Plus (under) 30mph in a well lit tunnel is hardly fast moving.

Originally Posted by maxinc

You can't really appreciate how tight this tunnel is unless you drive through it. There is very little margin for error and trying to squeeze a bike between two already packed cars is seriously risky business.

If the traffic is so packed in, then they can't be moving very fast, which makes it quite safe so long as you mind the gaps.


I admit I have not seen this tunnel, but the M62 as Owenski describes is perfectly safe to filter down where there is a gap.

It's filtering, you can't expect a wide open lane for you, gaps will come and go... the nature of the beast, surely?

I wasn't saying that is impossible to filter. Just that clipping the kerb under these circumstances could happen to anyone.

Since the driver tried to make room, I was led to believe that wasn't enough space for the rider to get through.

Here's another perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ZSZad2UoA

At some point, there' s a bike catching up in the queue (2:10) so you can better judge the size of vehicles.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by thulfi

So Christopher Reeve deserves to never walk again because he rode a horse (risky) and fell off?

Yes, he deserved to not to walk again. I had as much sympathy for him as the next man and thought it was a great shame at the time but he should have rode the horse better or worn better protective equipment. It was the consequence of his free right to ride a horse and I would defend his free right to ride a horse to the end.
You can't separate consequences from effect and you can't wrap everyone in cotton wool.

Originally Posted by Stu

Yes, he deserved to not to walk again. I had as much sympathy for him as the next man and thought it was a great shame at the time but he should have rode the horse better or worn better protective equipment. It was the consequence of his free right to ride a horse and I would defend his free right to ride a horse to the end.
You can't separate consequences from effect and you can't wrap everyone in cotton wool.

Don't agree.

He doesn't deserve to never walk again purely because he rode a horse with the wrong protective equipment - he doesn't deserve to walk again because he made a load of crap Superman films and never actually gave Lois Lane the benefit of his experience and a stick of Kryptonite where it's gonna make her happy

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Lozzo

Don't agree.

That should be your sig Lozzo

He doesn't deserve to never walk again purely because he rode a horse with the wrong protective equipment - he doesn't deserve to walk again because he made a load of crap Superman films and never actually gave Lois Lane the benefit of his experience and a stick of Kryptonite where it's gonna make her happy

Originally Posted by Stu

Yes, he deserved to not to walk again. I had as much sympathy for him as the next man and thought it was a great shame at the time but he should have rode the horse better or worn better protective equipment. It was the consequence of his free right to ride a horse and I would defend his free right to ride a horse to the end.
You can't separate consequences from effect and you can't wrap everyone in cotton wool.

Nobodies trying to seperate the consequence from the cause . That is an obvious fact of life. But your logic of deserving what befalls you is the same as:

If you get stabbed/raped when walking back home late from a night club you deserve it as you know its riskier than waking up a mate to come get you.

If you die because a drunk driver takes you out on your bike you deserve it because you know riding a bike is risky.

If you rupture a blood vessel inside your brain when coming off you bike you deserve it because...well do you? Helmet aint gonna do anything to stop that.

Come on, you can't seriously believe that. I'm talking about deserving the consequences, not facing/accepting/acknowledging the consequences of your actions - unless you have a different definition of the word deserve.

To put it another way, some take risky actions on a bike, botch it and die. Others take risky actions, botch it and survive. Do they not all deserve the same outcome?
If not, why do you think the ones that died deserved to and the ones that survivied didn't?

Originally Posted by Lozzo

he doesn't deserve to walk again because he made a load of crap Superman films and never actually gave Lois Lane the benefit of his experience and a stick of Kryptonite where it's gonna make her happy

.
(although come on, the first two aint so bad) + would rather have seen lana lang have a happy time with the krypto than lois!

[Red Herring]

OK, look at it this way then. If you cross the road outside your house and do so without looking properly then that is careless and there is a good chance you could get seriously hurt, however you were going about something that we all do and know is potentially dangerous, but we normally manage the risk by looking properly....

If on the other hand you decide to cross four lanes of busy traffic on a dual carriageway when there is a perfectly good footbridge right next to you then you are substantially increasing the risk for a minor gain in terms of your time... and quite frankly in my view you "deserve" everything you get.


Edit to add that I have made the assumption you haven't got four lanes of busy dual carriageway outside your house....but you hopefully see what I mean!

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

How many posts I have made in this thread has absolutely no bearing, you've made plenty, and I guarantee I hold your opinion in an even lower regard than you hold mine.

The statement I commented on has everything to do with the thread in that it was a condemnation of a foolish point of view.
From what part of that do you deduce that I haven't read the entire discussion?

I have not ridden through this tunnel, though I would like to think myself capable of deciding when to filter and when not to myself.

Was my comment as pointless as, for example, somebody casting a broad assertion that people deserve some great misfortune for doing something they do not agree with?

Please explain how my view is pointless? I fail to see how it is. Oh and I can GUARANTEE you that I hold your opinion in a much lower regard than you hold mine, its a public discussion forum, get used to it.

[Red Herring]

Your view is not pointless Stuuk1, just contentious. I think the issue here is that some people feel they are capable of making their own mind up if they can filter safely in a particular location and take offence at your suggestion they shouldn't, or deserve to be hurt if they do.

Originally Posted by Red Herring

I personally think that if someone rides with no margin for error it's only a matter of when, not if, they get hurt.

Sigh, I know, and I've got the aches to prove it!

How about if you take the word "deserve" out of it, and use an expression my old man used to use.

"Well, Son, you had it coming! One day you'll learn your lesson"

When my old man used to say that everytime I came hobbling home covered in blood, did he mean I'd deserved it? Or did he just mean it was bound to happen eventually?