This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Even TDF winners are not immune from acts of lunacy
https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/861860980430696448
https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/861860980430696448
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
That is ridiculous - what was the driver thinking? That sort of encounter has no assurance of a 'no harm done' outcome.
What with Michele Scarponi and Mike Hall it's all getting a bit much at the moment
That is ridiculous - what was the driver thinking? That sort of encounter has no assurance of a 'no harm done' outcome.
What with Michele Scarponi and Mike Hall it's all getting a bit much at the moment
1
In reply to nniff:
There was a fatality in our area last week when a well known local cyclist was run in to from behind by a van.
Then there was the well publicised 'punishment pass' was caught on camera that fortunately only resulted in the drivers instant dismissal by his employer.
There's barely a week goes by without a reported 'dangerously close' or 'punishment pass' incident occurring to one of my fellow club members - and we're not in an urban commuting scenario.
Drivers do it in the almost certain knowledge that their intimidation will go unpunished.
It's almost starting to feel like war out there. I'm gradually coming round to the idea of having a camera fitted to my bike .
There was a fatality in our area last week when a well known local cyclist was run in to from behind by a van.
Then there was the well publicised 'punishment pass' was caught on camera that fortunately only resulted in the drivers instant dismissal by his employer.
There's barely a week goes by without a reported 'dangerously close' or 'punishment pass' incident occurring to one of my fellow club members - and we're not in an urban commuting scenario.
Drivers do it in the almost certain knowledge that their intimidation will go unpunished.
It's almost starting to feel like war out there. I'm gradually coming round to the idea of having a camera fitted to my bike .
3
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Interesting. Where I cycle I'd say its just the opposite over the last 5 years: the vast majority of drivers of all vehicles leaving more space, being more aware, not overtaking on blind spots. fingers crossed the trend continues.
Interesting. Where I cycle I'd say its just the opposite over the last 5 years: the vast majority of drivers of all vehicles leaving more space, being more aware, not overtaking on blind spots. fingers crossed the trend continues.
9
In reply to GrahamD:
I thankfully agree with Graham that attitudes and behaviour have much improved.
I thankfully agree with Graham that attitudes and behaviour have much improved.
2
In reply to GrahamD:
Not all motorists behave badly - and some are very considerate.
The worst culprits seem to be van drivers and drivers of SUV's ( particularly pick ups). The size of their vehicle seems to make them feel invincible. A lot of the 'agricultural' community round our way drive as though the local lanes are their own personal race track!
I'm always very wary of SUV's towing caravans or horse boxes - as the drivers generally fail to realise just how wide the trailer actually is - and how much it can sway.
Not all motorists behave badly - and some are very considerate.
The worst culprits seem to be van drivers and drivers of SUV's ( particularly pick ups). The size of their vehicle seems to make them feel invincible. A lot of the 'agricultural' community round our way drive as though the local lanes are their own personal race track!
I'm always very wary of SUV's towing caravans or horse boxes - as the drivers generally fail to realise just how wide the trailer actually is - and how much it can sway.
Post edited at 12:15
1
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
I've given up and got a camera for my commuting bike. Whilst I think that general awareness has gone up, there remain a significant number of drivers who are impatient, temperamentally unsuited to driving, incompetent or busy doing things other than concentrating on driving. It seems that society struggles to address these drivers' failures robustly, which should be surprising given the current focus on vulnerability and health & safety in all other walks of life.
I've given up and got a camera for my commuting bike. Whilst I think that general awareness has gone up, there remain a significant number of drivers who are impatient, temperamentally unsuited to driving, incompetent or busy doing things other than concentrating on driving. It seems that society struggles to address these drivers' failures robustly, which should be surprising given the current focus on vulnerability and health & safety in all other walks of life.
8
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Me too. At least my family might get to know who killed me.
> There was a fatality in our area last week when a well known local cyclist was run in to from behind by a van.Then there was the well publicised 'punishment pass' was caught on camera that fortunately only resulted in the drivers instant dismissal by his employer.There's barely a week goes by without a reported 'dangerously close' or 'punishment pass' incident occurring to one of my fellow club members - and we're not in an urban commuting scenario. Drivers do it in the almost certain knowledge that their intimidation will go unpunished. It's almost starting to feel like war out there. I'm gradually coming round to the idea of having a camera fitted to my bike .
Me too. At least my family might get to know who killed me.
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Yep, vans and cars towing trailers wider than the vehicle are the worse, and old people in cars, on average, seem to begrudge the space needed to be given to cyclists the most.
> Not all motorists behave badly - and some are very considerate. The worst culprits seem to be van drivers and drivers of SUV's ( particularly pick ups). The size of their vehicle seems to make them feel invincible. A lot of the 'agricultural' community round our way drive as though the local lanes are their own personal race track! I'm always very wary of SUV's towing caravans or horse boxes - as the drivers generally fail to realise just how wide the trailer actually is - and how much it can sway.
Yep, vans and cars towing trailers wider than the vehicle are the worse, and old people in cars, on average, seem to begrudge the space needed to be given to cyclists the most.
1
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Well, a few years ago I had a van passing by very close and front passenger leaning out to push me off my bike, whilst cycling alone near the north downs.
My wife had a van pull up beside her and the front passenger empty a coke can over her last year. Some lovely people out there.
Well, a few years ago I had a van passing by very close and front passenger leaning out to push me off my bike, whilst cycling alone near the north downs.
My wife had a van pull up beside her and the front passenger empty a coke can over her last year. Some lovely people out there.
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
You say this but my most recent run in was with a bloke in his late 60s/early 70s driving a VW up who thought he could squeeze by me as I was passing a parked car at the same time as another car was passing a parked car on the other side of the road (so 4 cars +cyclist across a residential road). When I pulled up behind him at the next set of lights and looked through his rear window out of interest to see who it was that just passed me so closely and he jumped out and started the "What's your problem?" bollocks before trying to grip hold of my collar etc.
> Not all motorists behave badly - and some are very considerate. The worst culprits seem to be van drivers and drivers of SUV's ( particularly pick ups). The size of their vehicle seems to make them feel invincible.
You say this but my most recent run in was with a bloke in his late 60s/early 70s driving a VW up who thought he could squeeze by me as I was passing a parked car at the same time as another car was passing a parked car on the other side of the road (so 4 cars +cyclist across a residential road). When I pulled up behind him at the next set of lights and looked through his rear window out of interest to see who it was that just passed me so closely and he jumped out and started the "What's your problem?" bollocks before trying to grip hold of my collar etc.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I would like to see the statistics that say that old people , on average, seem to begrudge the space needed etc etc.
The white van men, the pickup and trailer drivers, the SUV drivers, the people involved in innumerable road rage videos----just how old do you reckon they are?
Of course, if "old" just means someone older than you........
I would like to see the statistics that say that old people , on average, seem to begrudge the space needed etc etc.
The white van men, the pickup and trailer drivers, the SUV drivers, the people involved in innumerable road rage videos----just how old do you reckon they are?
Of course, if "old" just means someone older than you........
Post edited at 00:21
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Not just the old, I have a huge generalisation that anyone who drives whilst wearing a hat is going to be dangerous!
Not just the old, I have a huge generalisation that anyone who drives whilst wearing a hat is going to be dangerous!
5
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Really? You'd 'like' to see them?
> I would like to see the statistics that say that old people , on average, seem to begrudge the space needed etc etc.The white van men, the pickup and trailer drivers, the SUV drivers, the people involved in innumerable road rage videos----just how old do you reckon they are? Of course, if "old" just means someone older than you........
Really? You'd 'like' to see them?
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
On the A442 today and three riders were correctly riding two abreast with one behind in a section with double white lines and a van in front decided he wouldn't wait ten seconds until an oncoming van had gone past before queezing between the outermost rider and oncoming van with inches to spare. The only possible criticism of the riders is that the outer rider should have been even further out to prevent the attempt, but bloody hell what goes through driver's minds? I reckon a morning on a busy road on a bike (e-bike if they're fat) should be part of the test for able-bodied drivers.
On the A442 today and three riders were correctly riding two abreast with one behind in a section with double white lines and a van in front decided he wouldn't wait ten seconds until an oncoming van had gone past before queezing between the outermost rider and oncoming van with inches to spare. The only possible criticism of the riders is that the outer rider should have been even further out to prevent the attempt, but bloody hell what goes through driver's minds? I reckon a morning on a busy road on a bike (e-bike if they're fat) should be part of the test for able-bodied drivers.
4
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
on the contrary round here, it seems that the majority of drivers who hang back instead of instantly committing to a dangerous overtake to pass me are in the older age group.
on the contrary round here, it seems that the majority of drivers who hang back instead of instantly committing to a dangerous overtake to pass me are in the older age group.
2
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Well the obvious response to that (trying to put a neutral hat on) is that if they had cycled single file then there would have been bags of room and that, therefore, would have been the considerate thing to do. By correctly I assume you mean legally as opposed to considerately ?
> On the A442 today and three riders were correctly riding two abreast with one behind in a section with double white lines and a van in front decided he wouldn't wait ten seconds until an oncoming van had gone past before queezing between the outermost rider and oncoming van with inches to spare. The only possible criticism of the riders is that the outer rider should have been even further out to prevent the attempt, but bloody hell what goes through driver's minds? I reckon a morning on a busy road on a bike (e-bike if they're fat) should be part of the test for able-bodied drivers.
Well the obvious response to that (trying to put a neutral hat on) is that if they had cycled single file then there would have been bags of room and that, therefore, would have been the considerate thing to do. By correctly I assume you mean legally as opposed to considerately ?
5
6
In reply to GrahamD:
No, there was not enough room to allow a single cyclist to cycle in a safe distance from the verge, a van, and at least 1.5m gap between the van and cyclist, all on one side of the double white lines.
"Considerate" doesn't mean "endangering oneself to facilitate someone's impatience", you know?
No, there was not enough room to allow a single cyclist to cycle in a safe distance from the verge, a van, and at least 1.5m gap between the van and cyclist, all on one side of the double white lines.
"Considerate" doesn't mean "endangering oneself to facilitate someone's impatience", you know?
12
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
You're right. I would be upset if such statistics ever materialised. Somehow, I doubt they will so people will be left to make anecdotal observations to back up their opinions.
You're right. I would be upset if such statistics ever materialised. Somehow, I doubt they will so people will be left to make anecdotal observations to back up their opinions.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I can't see what you're getting so upset about. My opinion is based on my observation and is relevant only to my experience. I'm not claiming it's some kind of proof!
I can't see what you're getting so upset about. My opinion is based on my observation and is relevant only to my experience. I'm not claiming it's some kind of proof!
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Froome got it easy compared to this poor bloke . . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39876692
Froome got it easy compared to this poor bloke . . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39876692
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Well from your post, the outside cyclist in this instance clearly was endangered to a far greater extent than if they had been in single file, you know.
> No, there was not enough room to allow a single cyclist to cycle in a safe distance from the verge, a van, and at least 1.5m gap between the van and cyclist, all on one side of the double white lines."Considerate" doesn't mean "endangering oneself to facilitate someone's impatience", you know?
Well from your post, the outside cyclist in this instance clearly was endangered to a far greater extent than if they had been in single file, you know.
6
6
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
I noticed that the police have a Drive to show the min passing distance between cars and bikes.
The drivers will be aware of that, so wearing a cam may be a deterrent , or at worst having evidence of a helmet cam will help with a prosecution ( even if you are dead)
> Drivers do it in the almost certain knowledge that their intimidation will go unpunished. It's almost starting to feel like war out there. I'm gradually coming round to the idea of having a camera fitted to my bike .
I noticed that the police have a Drive to show the min passing distance between cars and bikes.
The drivers will be aware of that, so wearing a cam may be a deterrent , or at worst having evidence of a helmet cam will help with a prosecution ( even if you are dead)
Post edited at 04:52
In reply to GrahamD:
Is the point not the driver was in a double white line area so it was ilegal to pass whether it was a bike or not.
Is the point not the driver was in a double white line area so it was ilegal to pass whether it was a bike or not.
2
In reply to coinneach:
If they really wanted to punish the woman, they could have also banned her from having a phone.
> Froome got it easy compared to this poor bloke . . . .http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39876692
If they really wanted to punish the woman, they could have also banned her from having a phone.
1
In reply to Jim C:
I always thought that if the obstructing vehicle/horse was doing less than 10 mph you are allowed to pass it by crossing the white lines where you can do so safely.
I always thought that if the obstructing vehicle/horse was doing less than 10 mph you are allowed to pass it by crossing the white lines where you can do so safely.
Post edited at 08:19
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Yes, Rule 129 in the Highway Code:
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
> I always thought that if the obstructing vehicle/horse was doing less than 10 mph you are allowed to pass it by crossing the white lines where you can do so safely.
Yes, Rule 129 in the Highway Code:
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
In reply to Jim C:
No. It is illegal to cross the unbroken white line. If the driver has space to safely overtake without doing so then it is legeal. This is admittedly unlikely.
Further, as Tom V notes, crossing the unbroken line is permitted for overtaking vehicles doing under 10 mph; see Highway Code rule 129.
> Is the point not the driver was in a double white line area so it was ilegal to pass whether it was a bike or not.
No. It is illegal to cross the unbroken white line. If the driver has space to safely overtake without doing so then it is legeal. This is admittedly unlikely.
Further, as Tom V notes, crossing the unbroken line is permitted for overtaking vehicles doing under 10 mph; see Highway Code rule 129.
In reply to GrahamD:
No, I expect the overtaking van probably would have given themselves more room from the oncoming van because screw the cyclists. It's telling that your neutral hat has made you criticise the victim of an easily lethal pass and not even mention the driver making the pass, which, to remind you, could have been done hugely safer if the van driver had waited literally two seconds longer.
> Well from your post, the outside cyclist in this instance clearly was endangered to a far greater extent than if they had been in single file, you know.
No, I expect the overtaking van probably would have given themselves more room from the oncoming van because screw the cyclists. It's telling that your neutral hat has made you criticise the victim of an easily lethal pass and not even mention the driver making the pass, which, to remind you, could have been done hugely safer if the van driver had waited literally two seconds longer.
4
In reply to GrahamD:
From your suggestion that we should all ride in the gutter to let you pass us, or ride "considerately", could I suggest that the driver should be considerate to the cyclist and give them plenty of room.
After all, on one side a driver is potentially delayed by a few seconds and on the other side someone's life is endangered.
Otherwise, could you be considerate and just don't drive anywhere so that when I'm using the road as either a cyclist or a driver (amazingly I do both drive and cycle) I'm not delayed by your vehicle being one the road.
From your suggestion that we should all ride in the gutter to let you pass us, or ride "considerately", could I suggest that the driver should be considerate to the cyclist and give them plenty of room.
After all, on one side a driver is potentially delayed by a few seconds and on the other side someone's life is endangered.
Otherwise, could you be considerate and just don't drive anywhere so that when I'm using the road as either a cyclist or a driver (amazingly I do both drive and cycle) I'm not delayed by your vehicle being one the road.
2
In reply to Tom Valentine:
This maybe so but, on the flat you can easily ride along at 15-20 mph. This is something that irritates me on my way to work when I'm cycling at 20ish in a 20 zone through the centre of town where there has been a couple of pedestrian deaths and cars speed past me pulling in sharply before I ride past them again to the advanced stop line at the lights.
People just don't want to be out done by a cyclist, even if they are travelling at (or sometimes above the speed limit).
> I always thought that if the obstructing vehicle/horse was doing less than 10 mph you are allowed to pass it by crossing the white lines where you can do so safely.
This maybe so but, on the flat you can easily ride along at 15-20 mph. This is something that irritates me on my way to work when I'm cycling at 20ish in a 20 zone through the centre of town where there has been a couple of pedestrian deaths and cars speed past me pulling in sharply before I ride past them again to the advanced stop line at the lights.
People just don't want to be out done by a cyclist, even if they are travelling at (or sometimes above the speed limit).
4
In reply to Jim C:
I thought the point was about cyclist safety rather than the legality of what the van was doing. But obviously it varies case by case.
> Is the point not the driver was in a double white line area so it was ilegal to pass whether it was a bike or not.
I thought the point was about cyclist safety rather than the legality of what the van was doing. But obviously it varies case by case.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
You make one judgement on this instance I make another. I'm not making any statement of right or wrong - the van driver is wrong. I was commenting on safety and in this instance, and even if the van driver had split the difference to single file cyclists that is still more room for the cyclist. In this instance.
You say its telling that.... In what way telling ?
> No, I expect the overtaking van probably would have given themselves more room from the oncoming van because screw the cyclists. It's telling that your neutral hat has made you criticise the victim of an easily lethal pass and not even mention the driver making the pass, which, to remind you, could have been done hugely safer if the van driver had waited literally two seconds longer.
You make one judgement on this instance I make another. I'm not making any statement of right or wrong - the van driver is wrong. I was commenting on safety and in this instance, and even if the van driver had split the difference to single file cyclists that is still more room for the cyclist. In this instance.
You say its telling that.... In what way telling ?
In reply to gethin_allen:
From that I assume you are assuming I'm siding with the driver. I'm not. I ride a bike regularly and haven't driven a van for years. I'm saying that, as a cyclist I would be very nervous of riding on the outside in this formation in this situation. I would certainly not advocate riding in the gutter (nowhere to go if someone gets close) but I would advocate looking at the situation and if there was a possibility of what happened happening, then think of your options especially if you are exposed on the outside where the inside rider isn't giving you any space to manouvre into.
Ultimately you may be within your rights to do so but asserting those rights is a bloody dangerous passtime.
> From your suggestion that we should all ride in the gutter to let you pass us,
From that I assume you are assuming I'm siding with the driver. I'm not. I ride a bike regularly and haven't driven a van for years. I'm saying that, as a cyclist I would be very nervous of riding on the outside in this formation in this situation. I would certainly not advocate riding in the gutter (nowhere to go if someone gets close) but I would advocate looking at the situation and if there was a possibility of what happened happening, then think of your options especially if you are exposed on the outside where the inside rider isn't giving you any space to manouvre into.
Ultimately you may be within your rights to do so but asserting those rights is a bloody dangerous passtime.
1
1
In reply to GrahamD:
"... be within your rights to do so but asserting those rights is a bloody dangerous passtime."
So it's nothing to do with courtesy, and nothing to do with the legalities (as you state above) it's just self preservation in a dog eat dog world where the person with the biggest lump of metal wins and the cyclist has the most to lose.
And you're happy with this and have no reason to complain if you get spannered by a truck because they are bigger than everyone else so can do what they like?
"... be within your rights to do so but asserting those rights is a bloody dangerous passtime."
So it's nothing to do with courtesy, and nothing to do with the legalities (as you state above) it's just self preservation in a dog eat dog world where the person with the biggest lump of metal wins and the cyclist has the most to lose.
And you're happy with this and have no reason to complain if you get spannered by a truck because they are bigger than everyone else so can do what they like?
3
In reply to gethin_allen:
^^^this^^^
Especially bellends.
> .People just don't want to be out done by a cyclist, even if they are travelling at (or sometimes above the speed limit).
^^^this^^^
Especially bellends.
2
In reply to gethin_allen:
Err your assertion certainly doesn't follow what I wrote. Courtesy on the road from all parties is exactly what I'm advocating.
Don't be so bloody daft. Of course I'm not happy about being deliberately or unwittingly run off the road. But I'd rather be alive and in one piece to argue my case afterwards than not.
> "... be within your rights to do so but asserting those rights is a bloody dangerous passtime."So it's nothing to do with courtesy, and nothing to do with the legalities (as you state above)
Err your assertion certainly doesn't follow what I wrote. Courtesy on the road from all parties is exactly what I'm advocating.
> it's just self preservation in a dog eat dog world where the person with the biggest lump of metal wins and the cyclist has the most to lose. And you're happy with this and have no reason to complain if you get spannered by a truck because they are bigger than everyone else so can do what they like?
Don't be so bloody daft. Of course I'm not happy about being deliberately or unwittingly run off the road. But I'd rather be alive and in one piece to argue my case afterwards than not.
2
2
In reply to GrahamD:
So you're advocating courtesy from all road users, so I'll ask again, why shouldn't the van driver show courtesy to the cyclists by hanging back for a second and then passing with plenty of space?
Don't be so bloody daft. Of course I'm not happy about being deliberately or unwittingly run off the road. But I'd rather be alive and in one piece to argue my case afterwards than not.
And you don't want to be run off the road yet you are defending the actions of the driver by trying to legitimise their actions.
No matter what anyone is doing in the road it is the responsibility of the driver to avoid them, give them the correct amount of space and not break the law. You can not select which laws you want to abide by based on how much you are irritated by someone or something.
If it were a person in a invalid carriage then it would be different but because it's a cyclist it's fair game because we're seen as some form or lower being, despite the fact that most cyclists are probably also driver. And if it were a motorcyclist the driver would avoid them because they have a tough reputation.
Your argument is bullsh1t and you know it is so don't bother.
> Err your assertion certainly doesn't follow what I wrote. Courtesy on the road from all parties is exactly what I'm advocating.
So you're advocating courtesy from all road users, so I'll ask again, why shouldn't the van driver show courtesy to the cyclists by hanging back for a second and then passing with plenty of space?
Don't be so bloody daft. Of course I'm not happy about being deliberately or unwittingly run off the road. But I'd rather be alive and in one piece to argue my case afterwards than not.
And you don't want to be run off the road yet you are defending the actions of the driver by trying to legitimise their actions.
No matter what anyone is doing in the road it is the responsibility of the driver to avoid them, give them the correct amount of space and not break the law. You can not select which laws you want to abide by based on how much you are irritated by someone or something.
If it were a person in a invalid carriage then it would be different but because it's a cyclist it's fair game because we're seen as some form or lower being, despite the fact that most cyclists are probably also driver. And if it were a motorcyclist the driver would avoid them because they have a tough reputation.
Your argument is bullsh1t and you know it is so don't bother.
2
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
. "You can not select which laws you want to abide by based on how much you are irritated by someone or something. "
I couldn't agree more.
. "You can not select which laws you want to abide by based on how much you are irritated by someone or something. "
I couldn't agree more.
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
He should but didn't. Equally, it doesn't sound like the cyclists in this instance were courteous either.
>...yet you are defending the actions of the driver by trying to legitimise their actions
Where have I tried to legitimise the action of the driver ?
>No matter what anyone is doing in the road it is the responsibility of the driver to avoid them, give them the correct amount of space and not break the law.
Yes, obviously
>You can not select which laws you want to abide by based on how much you are irritated by someone or something. If it were a person in a invalid carriage then it would be different but because it's a cyclist it's fair game because we're seen as some form or lower being, despite the fact that most cyclists are probably also driver.
Now you are off on one. This rant bears no relation to anything I've written
>And if it were a motorcyclist the driver would avoid them because they have a tough reputation.Your argument is bullsh1t and you know it is so don't bother.
Err you really are extrapolating wildly from what I wrote. Most motorcyclists (those that are still alive) know the value of riding according to the dangers around them irrespective of the law. You don't assert your right of way by deliberately riding into the side of a care which has misjudged pulling out of a side road, do you ?
Anyway its nearly lunch time and I'm off for a hopefully incident free spin on my bike.
> So you're advocating courtesy from all road users, so I'll ask again, why shouldn't the van driver show courtesy to the cyclists by hanging back for a second and then passing with plenty of space?
He should but didn't. Equally, it doesn't sound like the cyclists in this instance were courteous either.
>...yet you are defending the actions of the driver by trying to legitimise their actions
Where have I tried to legitimise the action of the driver ?
>No matter what anyone is doing in the road it is the responsibility of the driver to avoid them, give them the correct amount of space and not break the law.
Yes, obviously
>You can not select which laws you want to abide by based on how much you are irritated by someone or something. If it were a person in a invalid carriage then it would be different but because it's a cyclist it's fair game because we're seen as some form or lower being, despite the fact that most cyclists are probably also driver.
Now you are off on one. This rant bears no relation to anything I've written
>And if it were a motorcyclist the driver would avoid them because they have a tough reputation.Your argument is bullsh1t and you know it is so don't bother.
Err you really are extrapolating wildly from what I wrote. Most motorcyclists (those that are still alive) know the value of riding according to the dangers around them irrespective of the law. You don't assert your right of way by deliberately riding into the side of a care which has misjudged pulling out of a side road, do you ?
Anyway its nearly lunch time and I'm off for a hopefully incident free spin on my bike.
1
4
In reply to GrahamD:
Courteous? Courteous as in endangering themselves to help the driver behind to make an illegal and highly dangerous manoeuvre? There's a reason people paint double white lines down the middle of a road and it's to indicate that overtaking anything faster than 10mph is illegal and potentially dangerous. As I said before, I think the cyclist's only mistake in hindsight was to not take the centre and make it impossible for the van to attempt its ridiculous pass.
You're wholly, and wildly, wrong on this and, worse than that, by victim-blaming you effectively legitimise the actions of those who wilfully or carelessly endanger the lives of some of the most vulnerable road users simply out of impatience at a perceived (and not even real) delay to their oh-so-important journey.
I hope you don't meet the same driver out on your ride.
> He should but didn't. Equally, it doesn't sound like the cyclists in this instance were courteous either.
Courteous? Courteous as in endangering themselves to help the driver behind to make an illegal and highly dangerous manoeuvre? There's a reason people paint double white lines down the middle of a road and it's to indicate that overtaking anything faster than 10mph is illegal and potentially dangerous. As I said before, I think the cyclist's only mistake in hindsight was to not take the centre and make it impossible for the van to attempt its ridiculous pass.
You're wholly, and wildly, wrong on this and, worse than that, by victim-blaming you effectively legitimise the actions of those who wilfully or carelessly endanger the lives of some of the most vulnerable road users simply out of impatience at a perceived (and not even real) delay to their oh-so-important journey.
I hope you don't meet the same driver out on your ride.
2
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
although something like this then may have happened?
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/comment/incidents-like-sussex-van-frighte...
> As I said before, I think the cyclist's only mistake in hindsight was to not take the centre and make it impossible for the van to attempt its ridiculous pass.
although something like this then may have happened?
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/comment/incidents-like-sussex-van-frighte...
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I hope you don't meet the same driver out on your ride.
That's not a driver, that's a knob in a van.
I hope you don't meet the same driver out on your ride.
That's not a driver, that's a knob in a van.
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Read the OP again. The cyclist did not help the driver make the manouvre but the driver made it anyway. In single file in this instance the rider would have been less exposed to the manouvre. There is a big difference between what people should do and what they actually do. I tend to base my safety decisions on what I think a driver is going to do, not what I think they should do.
> Courteous? Courteous as in endangering themselves to help the driver behind to make an illegal and highly dangerous manoeuvre?
Read the OP again. The cyclist did not help the driver make the manouvre but the driver made it anyway. In single file in this instance the rider would have been less exposed to the manouvre. There is a big difference between what people should do and what they actually do. I tend to base my safety decisions on what I think a driver is going to do, not what I think they should do.
1
2
In reply to GrahamD:
The driver didn't wait behind the cyclist for a second he just carried on, so the cyclist had no time to react either "courteously" or more defensively. If he was wearing his non-psychic cycling shorts then he wouldn't have had a good opportunity to engage the driver telepathically.
The driver didn't wait behind the cyclist for a second he just carried on, so the cyclist had no time to react either "courteously" or more defensively. If he was wearing his non-psychic cycling shorts then he wouldn't have had a good opportunity to engage the driver telepathically.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
The fact that you are on a busy road two abreast should ring warning bells though. Each to their own but I wouldn't want to be the one on the outside in this sort of situation. Way less margin for anyone's error.
The fact that you are on a busy road two abreast should ring warning bells though. Each to their own but I wouldn't want to be the one on the outside in this sort of situation. Way less margin for anyone's error.
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
You are not dealing with rational people. They don't care about you, you are in their way! Cameras and riding two abreast will not save you from someone who doesn't care. Cycling is not a safe form of transport.
> On the A442 today and three riders were correctly riding two abreast with one behind in a section with double white lines and a van in front decided he wouldn't wait ten seconds until an oncoming van had gone past before queezing between the outermost rider and oncoming van with inches to spare. The only possible criticism of the riders is that the outer rider should have been even further out to prevent the attempt, but bloody hell what goes through driver's minds? I reckon a morning on a busy road on a bike (e-bike if they're fat) should be part of the test for able-bodied drivers.
I just don't get what you're not getting. You are not dealing with rational people. They don't care about you, you are in their way! Cameras and riding two abreast will not save you from someone who doesn't care. Cycling is not a safe form of transport.
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
I suspect that I am in the minority in what I am about to say, but then I have not been subject to a really close run driving incident when I have been on my bike.
I sometimes am irritated by drivers being(as I see it) unduly cautious in overtaking me, and I actually wave them round me, when in my judgement, there is plenty of space to overtake me. I also would narrow down to single file in many instances when vehicles approach from behind, partly because I choose to be somewhat courteous, partly as I do feel that riding two abreast at times is more likely to lead to contact between rider and other road user, and partly due to not wanting the vehicles behind me hanging around.
Rob
I suspect that I am in the minority in what I am about to say, but then I have not been subject to a really close run driving incident when I have been on my bike.
I sometimes am irritated by drivers being(as I see it) unduly cautious in overtaking me, and I actually wave them round me, when in my judgement, there is plenty of space to overtake me. I also would narrow down to single file in many instances when vehicles approach from behind, partly because I choose to be somewhat courteous, partly as I do feel that riding two abreast at times is more likely to lead to contact between rider and other road user, and partly due to not wanting the vehicles behind me hanging around.
Rob
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...