Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Retrogamer

modsandmockers wrote: »

Cyclists appear to be free to behave in any way they like, and omigod don’t they know it...

ps - including jumping level crossings!

What...like pedestrians?

modsandmockers

Retrogamer wrote: »

What...like pedestrians?

Without police permission, pedestrians are not generally allowed to to walk in front of moving traffic.

modsandmockers

modsandmockers wrote: »

Well, at the risk of stirring up a whole new can of worms, I would say that the problem is largely caused by the fact that cyclists face no risk of getting points on their licence, nor of losing their no claims bonus. Cyclists appear to be free to behave in any way they like, and omigod don’t they know it...

ps - including jumping level crossings!

pps - cyclists also have nothing to fear from having their registration details broadcast on the WorldWideWeb.

Tobster86

Norman_Castle wrote: »

:rotfl: The camera is about 1 1/2" from the centre.

The lens is also in the right of the camera housing, so the 5cm offset I stated earlier is pretty bloody generous too!

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Well, at the risk of stirring up a whole new can of worms, I would say blah blah....!

Yeah, you're right, you're way off topic.

What this thread has shown to me clearly is that there are a few (Tilt, M&M, Babbawah) who stubbornly refuse to completely exonerate the cyclist in this situation.
Tobster was cycling as per all safe cycling guidelines, yet these usual suspects continue to carp and criticise.

What is most disconcerting is that all three seem to believe the overtaking gap to be adequate and safe. It is a worry, and if their attitudes were in any way representative, then cyclist campaigners have got a much bigger job to ensure cyclist safety when being overtaken. It's no use having these misconceptions clarified in a police interview.

For me, what needs to be done is for the HC ambiguity around the overtaking gap to be cleared up, and to adopt the 1.0 and 1.5 metre minimum gap rule when overtaking (1.5 metres minimum in this 40mph limit scenario) which is becoming more widely used in other countries.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Yeah, you're right, you're way off topic.

What this thread has shown to me clearly is that there are a few (Tilt, M&M, Babbawah) who stubbornly refuse to completely exhonerate the cyclist in this situation.
Tobster was cycling as per all safe cycling guidelines, yet these usual suspects continue to carp and criticise.

Lets get one thing straight. The OP posted this thread for an opinion. Well he's getting it and not all posters will agree with each others opinions. Just because you don't agree with my opinion dosn't qualify you to call me stubborn. I just happen to disagree (even though I can't be 100% sure as I wasn't there and neither were you) that BOTH parties can be completely exonerated (seeing as you like to correct people, there's no 'H' in exonerate ).

brat wrote: »

What is most disconcerting is that all three seem to believe the overtaking gap to be adequate and safe. It is a worry, and if their attitudes were in any way representative, then cyclist campaigners have got a much bigger job to ensure cyclist safety when being overtaken. It's no use having these misconceptions clarified in a police interview.

I don't think that I actually said that I believe the overtake was safe. In fact I believe (from the footage available which dosn't accurately portray the whole situation) that BOTH cyclist and BMW driver were at fault.

Cyclist because he was unnecessarily riding in a 'primary position' on a straight 40mph road and BMW driver for overtaking while a car was coming the other way thus meaning that the space he could afford the cyclist while passing was indeed limited. I also think that the horn came from the car travelling in the opposite direction and was aimed at the BMW.

That is my opinion based on the footage available.

Tilt

Tobster86 wrote: »

The lens is also in the right of the camera housing, so the 5cm offset I stated earlier is pretty bloody generous too!

You do realise that moving a camera very slightly (which is capturing at real actual size) will result (when played back at a much smaller scale) in the movement appearing to be much greater?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

You do realise that moving a camera very slightly (which is capturing at real actual size) will result (when played back at a much smaller scale) in the movement appearing to be much greater?

Do you also accept that when you move a camera further away from an object, the object in turn becomes further away from the camera?

I await the usual Tilty twisty turny non-answer post with some interest...

MacMickster

brat wrote: »

For me, what needs to be done is for the HC ambiguity around the overtaking gap to be cleared up, and to adopt the 1.0 and 1.5 metre minimum gap rule when overtaking (1.5 metres minimum in this 40mph limit scenario) which is becoming more widely used in other countries.

Poppycock.

So we have gone from a car door's width to 3.25 feet clearance to be given to cyclists as a minimum at ANY speed and up to 5 feet- and yet cyclists believe that it is safe to filter (weave) through moving traffic even if it involves clipping the door mirrors of cars.

Just accept that there are many idiots using our roads whether drivers, cyclists or pedestrians. Both cyclists and drivers have EQUAL responsibility to keep all road users safe. As there will always be idiots on the roads, and given that in any collision between a car and a bike the cyclist will almost certainly come off worst, cyclists should always ride defensively. It is in their own interest to do so.

I consider that the car driver behaved perfectly safely from this clip. Good to know, however, that the OP has decided to take his footage to the police and I will be extremely interested to hear if the police consider that the driver has committed an offence to an extent where they are prepared to actually bring charges.

If, however, the police offer the OP nothing but a few platitudes I'm sure that he will have the good grace to report this back to the interested parties on this thread too. Please also let us know if they have anything to sat about your foul-mouthed hissy fit.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Do you also accept that when you move a camera further away from an object, the object in turn becomes further away from the camera?

I await the usual Tilty twisty turny non-answer post with some interest...

Of course it does. But what relevance does that have here? How can you compare the difference in distance between the bike and the BMW with one shot? The camera was positioned left of centre of the 'shot' without any part of the bike showing. This merely suggests that the BMW COULD be closer than it actually was.