Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Of course I was there!

On Streetview and on Google Satellite.

Using those facilities and the video, it's not difficult to work out a good approximation of the road width, lane width, the distance the cyclist is from the kerb, the speed of the bike, the speed of the car, the type of pavement, the speed limit, the distance to the 30mph limit, the type of path, the availability of cycle paths, etc etc.

Didn't think the police deal in "approximations". I hope this isn't the way you investigate RTC's!

brat wrote: »

The wide angled lens means that the closest ground view will be pretty close to the front of the bike. This means that when the BMW first comes into view its lateral road position will not have significantly altered from the point where it overtook, especially when you see how gradually it returns to it's lane position. This means that the offside wheels would hardly have been over the centre line, which (when you do some arithmetic) suggests that the gap between the BMW and Tobsters elbow will have been no more than 20 to 30cm or 8 - 12 inches.

Your missing one important factor which has now been confirmed by the OP. The camera was attached to the LEFT hand side of the handle bar meaning that it would provide the impression that the car was closer than it actually was. Plus it will also give the impression that the cyclist was further over to the left than he actually was.

Spicy_McHaggis

Babbawah wrote: »

On the basis that only a PSYCHOPATH would've moved the truck after seeing him . . . . I'm not sure that we're on the same wavelength.

What would I have been had I not seen him . . . the point being that I knew to look for him . . . !

The Big House might decide careless.

esuhl

Tilt wrote: »

Didn't think the police deal in "approximations". I hope this isn't the way you investigate RTC's!

Every measurement is an approximation, you fool!

brat

Babbawah wrote: »

I'm not sure that anyone in the whole wide world is actually anti-cyclist though !

No? Just after I read your comment, this came up on twitter.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/cyclists-deserve-to-die-they-are-incompetent-says-london-man-video-159325

Babbawah wrote: »

I agree that cyclists have a problem. A very serious problem IMO. But a few seem to go about doing nothing about it other than moaning and whinging.

Look around this sub forum and you'll find a decent amount of whingeing about cyclists by motorists.
But there is a significant difference between the two.
The motorist 'whinges' about cyclists failing to conform to their code, by filtering in queues, jumping red lights, hopping on to pavements etc etc.
The cyclist in contrast 'whinges' about near misses by motorists that put them in greater danger than they need to be.

Babbawah wrote: »

Would I have been the nasty person if I'd gone for my gap and killed him or would he have been the nasty one for making me live the rest of my life with the memory of him chewed up by the back wheels ?

A cyclist shouldn't put himself in a position of added risk. A motorist mustn't drive into a space where another road user is. There's circumstantial flesh to add to this, but that's the bones of it.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

Didn't think the police deal in "approximations". I hope this isn't the way you investigate RTC's!

He probably sits in the car with a nice cup of tea while his new 3D scanner does it exactly.
He may well decide to plot it using GPS or failing that if he really has to work go old school two fixed points and a tape measure.

Now I know who he is and having seen his work you'll have no criticisms of it.

Tilt

esuhl wrote: »

Every measurement is an approximation, you fool!

Lol, really??? Ok if you want to split a microscopic hair then of course you are correct (down to a millionth of an inch).

But kindly note, nowhere on this thread have I had to resort to personal insults. Just because our opinions differ dosn't make me a fool.

Retrogamer

Tilt wrote: »

Your missing one important factor which has now been confirmed by the OP. The camera was attached to the LEFT hand side of the handle bar meaning that it would provide the impression that the car was closer than it actually was. Plus it will also give the impression that the cyclist was further over to the left than he actually was.

Wouldn't the camera being mounted the left give the impression that the vehicle is further away than it actually was though?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Didn't think the police deal in "approximations". I hope this isn't the way you investigate RTC's!

As Esuhl so eruditely said, every measure we make will only be accurate to a certain degree. But no, I don't use Google Maps for any accurate measurements - there's little point when the roads on which the accidents happen are on my patch.

Your missing one important factor which has now been confirmed by the OP. The camera was attached to the LEFT hand side of the handle bar meaning that it would provide the impression that the car was closer than it actually was.

No, it would give the impression that the car was further away.

Plus it will also give the impression that the cyclist was further over to the left than he actually was.

By 1/20th of a metre. Neither here nor there.

Tilt

Retrogamer wrote: »

Wouldn't the camera being mounted the left give the impression that the vehicle is further away than it actually was though?

The centre of the picture is going to be on the left of the centre line of the bike so if you think about it, anything captured on the right hand side of shot will appear to be slightly more to the left than it actually is... especially if shot in wide screen (16:9) format.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

No, it would give the impression that the car was further away.

See above.

brat wrote: »

By 1/20th of a metre. Neither here nor there.

But of course.