Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Strider590

Tobster86 wrote: »

Filtering is highly subjective.

Not really, if i'm out my bike, i'd rather not get squashed between two cars because the moron behind is faffing about on his/her mobile.

Tobster86

Strider590 wrote: »

Not really, if i'm out my bike, i'd rather not get squashed between two cars because the moron behind is faffing about on his/her mobile.

Do you just go and stop in line with all the other vehicles in traffic then, in case the stationary vehicle in front is faffing with their phone?


Back to intelligent conversation, I personally never filter around large vehicles when they're moving or potentially could move for all the valid reasons raised by tight scotsman. Smaller vehicles depend, as I said, on the merits of the situation and most of it is to do with anticipation (how fast is the traffic, is it speeding up, how much space is there and is it changing?). I find 12ish mph is the point at which I prefer to take primary position and go with the flow, reverting to secondary as soon as I can't keep up if it's single carriageway.

Strider590

Tobster86 wrote: »

Do you just go and stop in line with all the other vehicles in traffic then, in case the stationary vehicle in front is faffing with their phone?

What are you talking about?

If not passing the stationary vehicles, then your in danger. If unable to pass, then you need to be in primary to stop a driver squeezing up next to you and pushing you into the kerb. BUT being in primary in stationary traffic carries the danger I mentioned.

Tobster86

Strider590 wrote: »

What are you talking about?

If not passing the stationary vehicles, then your in danger. If unable to pass, then you need to be in primary to stop a driver squeezing up next to you and pushing you into the kerb. BUT being in primary in stationary traffic carries the danger I mentioned.

Sorry, I completely misread your original post (read 'behind' as 'infront') and wrongly interpreted it as "filtering is dangerous because of people messing with their phones".

So yes, another valid point for keeping moving!

Cyclists/motorcyclists filtering is advantageous for car drivers too as it means cyclists/motorcyclists (who have already reduced the volume of traffic by not taking their car) are making use of space that is of no use to car drivers, instead of the space that is which would effectively increase traffic.

Spicy_McHaggis

modsandmockers wrote: »

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

Really?

Happens all the time.

brat

MacMickster wrote: »

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

Give it a few years, and the 1.0, 1.5 metre passing rule will be here too. http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/4115.html
Signs from other countries... One, Two, Three, Four, Five,

MacMickster wrote: »

- and yet cyclists believe that it is safe to filter (weave) through moving traffic even if it involves clipping the door mirrors of cars.

Safe to clip door mirrors?? Please talk sense.
Cyclists and motor cyclists do on occasion filter past stationary or slow moving vehicles. There is a key difference, however. The cyclist is likely to only place themselves at risk. Their momentum is not going to endanger anyone else. In contrast, the BMW driver's impatience is only likely to cause injury to the cyclist.

Fast filtering is not at all advised, just like overtaking at a high differential speed. If done, both of these need significant gaps between them and the vehicle they're passing.

MacMickster wrote: »

Just accept that there are many idiots using our roads whether drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.

You might want to point out where I have ever suggested otherwise.

MacMickster wrote: »

Both cyclists and drivers have EQUAL responsibility to keep all road users safe.

We are all responsible for the safety of all road users. There is a huge difference in the effect of the lack of that responsibility. There's not a lot that cyclists can do to keep motorists safe, whereas the cyclist's safety is much more dependent on the responsibility of motorists.

MacMickster wrote: »

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.

This is what Tobster was doing, in the secondary position, approximately one metre out from the kerb edge.
From British Cycling
"This way of riding is, to a large extent, communicating the cyclist’s intention to other road users. In the secondary position, she/he is saying “I want to see and be seen and I don’t mind if you overtake me, but you need to do it safely”. By taking the lane, riding in the primary position, the cyclist is saying “I want to see and be seen and I don’t want to be overtaken right now”."

MacMickster wrote: »

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 you rode a bike, you wouldn't think so. That's the reason for the instinctive expletives from Tobster.
FWIW, the police probably won't take action, because they tend to look for more before they would prosecute careless or inconsiderate. There is also a general unwillingness among many (including police) about accepting the reasons for the normal (secondary) position that cyclists should be in for their own safety, as shown by this HC diagram.

MacMickster wrote: »

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.

We shall see.

MacMickster wrote: »

Please also let us know if they have anything to say about your foul-mouthed hissy fit.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Could you please show me where I have been foul mouthed?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

So my opinion is "incorrect" because Brat says so??? Oh right!

I'm afraid it usually works that way Tilt.
But this was never about opinion. It's about the fact that if a camera sits to the left of the front wheel of a bike it's always going to make an overtaking car look further away than if the camera was directly over the front wheel.

Now do us all a favour, and accept this basic concept.
The camera was so near the centre of the bike that you needn't ever have made an issue of it in the first place.

Retrogamer

If you fitted one of these to your bicycle and a car travels too close and gets scratched will they admit it's their fault for driving too close to blame the cyclist
(obviously would be fitted to the right hand side over here)

boliston

Retrogamer wrote: »

If you fitted one of these to your bicycle and a car travels too close and gets scratched will they admit it's their fault for driving too close to blame the cyclist
(obviously would be fitted to the right hand side over here)

I doubt that would scratch a car - they are usually made of bendy plastic! You would need something rigid and made of metal but that could cause a problem if a car did hit it as the force of the impact on the metal spike could make you fall off the bike. Out of all the hazards on a bike I'd say close overtakes are low compared with cars failing to give way at almost any kind of junction.

Norman_Castle

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMickster
Please also let us know if they have anything to say about your foul-mouthed hissy fit.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Could you please show me where I have been foul mouthed?

I think this refers to the swearing in the ops video.
I'm not a legal expert but I suspect you can swear as much as you like if there's no-one there to here you.