Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Tobster86

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I think this refers to the swearing in the ops video.

Yes it did, and should I decide to report it (which I'm yet to do; West Mercia Police do have a mechanism in place but it involves a 9 page document), I admit this wasn't my proudest moment and fully accept the dire consequence which will at worst be a Section 5 verbal warning.

Retrogamer

I didn't hear any swearing. Just some beeping noises

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I think this refers to the swearing in the ops video.

I'm sure you're right. It was directed at me though, probably a result of more bad grammar. :think:

Norman_Castle wrote: »

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.

Correct. It has to be within the hearing or sight of a person.

Tobster86

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)

It looks like it would consume a calculable amount of energy over my 12.5 mile each way commute.

There's those 'laser bicycle lane' things around too now, but I've heard they're a bit crap.

I doubt either of these devices would have made any difference to the situation, and as has been briefly illuded to by boliston; the scariest and most dangerous incidents I've experienced have been cut-ups/failures to give way when I had right of way; rather than close overtakes.

That's not to say that close overtakes are less dangerous; ultimately the driver will either get away with it and create an annoyance, or they won't and will probably cause a death.

Tobster86

Retrogamer wrote: »

I didn't hear any swearing. Just some beeping noises

Fortunately I'm an accomplished vocalist, and capable of creating a perfect 1000Hz sinusoid even in moments of anger.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

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.

As usual, you have got it wrong. The opinion I was expressing was as per post #148 and indeed I stand by it.

brat wrote: »

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.

I've already covered this in post #152 and you are (again) incorrect. So nothing for me to accept so no favour to "all" i'm afraid.

Tilt

Norman_Castle wrote: »

What is your definition of the primary position for cyclists and its purpose?.

Sorry, I missed this until just.

I don't have a definition as it is what it is which is a cyclist riding roughly the distance from the kerb side to where the centre of the carriageway or the o/s of a car would be for the purpose of discouraging or preventing any overtake.

This would normally be appropriate when approaching a hazard ahead which the cyclist is going to encounter before any following vehicle could affect a safe overtake. Examples would be approaching a bend, central refuge or road junction.

It's been a few years since I passed my cycling proficiency test!

Strider590

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)

No, they would not admit anything, they would most likely give the cyclist a load of verbal and possibly even assault them.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

As usual, you have got it wrong. The opinion I was expressing was as per post #148 and indeed I stand by it.

For that opinion to have value, it needs to be based on the available facts. Your interpretation of Tobsters position as a 'primary position' is where you're going wrong.

I've already covered this in post #152 and you are (again) incorrect. So nothing for me to accept so no favour to "all" i'm afraid.

What you have done is completely change your view from post #123 which said,

"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."

You now have decided to agree with all others that this analysis was wrong.

Norman_Castle

Tilt wrote: »

I don't have a definition as it is what it is which is a cyclist riding roughly the distance from the kerb side to where the centre of the carriageway or the o/s of a car would be for the purpose of discouraging or preventing any overtake.

It's been a few years since I passed my cycling proficiency test!

Your understanding is correct. So do you accept the op was riding in the track of a vehicles nearside wheel which is about 1/3 of the way across the lane?.

It may be a few years since you've cycled, but all motorists need to understand and accept cyclists correct use of the primary position. I suspect many motorists view it as a cyclist being difficult and wrong, or just an inconvenience to them.