Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

modsandmockers

Norman_Castle wrote: »

When cycling I can hear if there is a car behind me. If I need to look I will look

Ummm - Bollox?

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

Ummm - Bollox?

Go on. Enlighten me with more of your ummm-Bollox.

frisbeej

modsandmockers wrote: »

Ummm - Bollox?

I would recommend you go get your hearing tested. Hearing is a great safety sense for cyclists (and pedestrians).

Poor hearing might explain a lot of your posts.

modsandmockers

modsandmockers wrote: »

On one occasion, a single cyclist moved to the right into the path of a group of 2 or 3, and caused the group to swerve onto the wrong side of the road - that’s what I mean by ‘bollox’.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Clearly there was no incident involving other vehicles as you would have mentioned it

Poor reading skills may also play a part...

modsandmockers

Let’s go back to the original video. Clearly, on a driving test, the overtaking driver would have failed due to a dangerous or potentially dangerous error. But so would the cyclist. That’s why there is no official advice that hogging the lane is ever a good idea. In real life, it is frequently better for all concerned if the motorist nips past the cyclist instead of sitting on his/her shoulder panting for a chance to overtake. It would work even better if the cyclist were to co-operate by moving to the left.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Let’s go back to the original video. Clearly, on a driving test, the overtaking driver would have failed due to a dangerous or potentially dangerous error. But so would the cyclist.

The cyclist would have failed on a driving test?! Of course! He was riding a bike! :rotfl:

Throbbe

silverwhistle wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion that it is no use engaging with this utter, utter p*****r. Every post, whether factually incorrect or just nastily biaised, confirms it. I don't even think they are a classic troll; just a very misguided individual.

Modsandmockers is either trolling or really that dim that you're not going to persuade him with reason. However, I think that there is some value in responding as others may learn something from these threads.

It is obvious that understanding of Cyclecraft is poor to non-existent for most road users, so having it discussed on forums, even in such polar terms, can only be a good thing.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Let’s go back to the original video. Clearly, on a driving test, the overtaking driver would have failed due to a dangerous or potentially dangerous error.

Ah, the penny has dropped!
Compare the above to your comment in post #20 when you wrote;

"I've watched the video several times, and I can see no wrong.
The car driver saw a chance to overtake a slower road user and did so in perfect safety."

That's progress, although because you're a particularly dim variety of troll, you'll have forgotten what opinion you favoured yesterday, so perhaps the progress isn't real.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Clearly, on a driving test, the overtaking driver would have failed due to a dangerous or potentially dangerous error. But so would the cyclist.

And we were doing so well...

modsandmockers wrote: »

That’s why there is no official advice that hogging the lane is ever a good idea.

Hogging a lane, as you describe it, is a feature of the 'primary' cycling position, which is taught in the DfT bikeability programme, so I don't know how much more official you need it to be. Combining primary and secondary cycling positions is a feature of progressive, more assertive cycling, and not all cyclists are 'assertive' which is why it won't be pushed in the Highway Code advice to all cyclists, although their picture showing how to overtake cyclists shows the cyclist in a 'one metre out' secondary position.



The secondary position (used when the primary position is not needed for safety or view) is a bit more subjective. It's generally seen as never less than 0.5 metres from the kerb edge, and up to one metre or more depending on various factors or hazards like drains, debris, road condition, or broken road edge. If possible (with a nice wide road) you should try to stay 1 metre or more nearside of the normal traffic flow. That's easy to do in a road with a lane width of five or six metres. When the lane width is 3.3 metres as it is on this road, there is insufficient lane width for that luxury. Any safe overtake of a cyclist on a narrow lane road will require the car driver to pass in the opposite lane - as per the above Highway Code image and guidance.
Theoretically, the safest position for a cyclist on a narrow lane road is the 'primary' position, which would encourage complete offside overtake when clear and would prevent dodgy overtakes. Unfortunately it can have the negative effect of frustrating motorists who are ignorant of the need for the primary position. Often an explanatory hand gesture (a palm back followed by a thumbs up on compliance) is enough to make motorists realise that there's a good reason why you are in that position.

modsandmockers wrote: »

In real life, it is frequently better for all concerned if the motorist nips past the cyclist instead of sitting on his/her shoulder panting for a chance to overtake. It would work even better if the cyclist were to co-operate by moving to the left.

You don't cycle, so that's probably the reason for your ignorance of cyclists' needs. If you have given up your licence, that's good, your attitude is a danger to cyclists.

The annoying thing is that most motorists can 'nip past' cyclists quite easily if they plan a little and treat the manoeuvre as an overtake. The BMW could have slowed a little on his approach to Tobster (slowed to the speed limit ) and planned his pass after the blue car had passed. Moving to the left would put Tobster into the gutter drains and puddles. This is not a good course to cycle, and it would have been one of the reasons he was out a little from the absolute minimum secondary position of 0.5 metres.

What you can glean from the video is that Tobster's cycling was in line with all cycling advice and guidance. The BMW in contrast was an ignorant, impatient bully who exhibited no care or consideration for vulnerable road users.

As I said earlier, the Highway Code gives the same instruction for motorists whether it's a cyclist or a horse rider they're passing.

Give them both plenty of room.

fred246

I have been cycling everywhere since I went to Holland 10 years ago. My belief is that we should have proper dedicated cycle lanes as they do. This would encourage everyone to cycle because at the moment the average person won't cycle because of safety fears. Every road should have a section clearly marked for pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles. I find the highway code picture fascinating. To the left we have a vehicle driving on the side meant for opposing traffic therefore risking a head on collision. Then we have most of the road empty. We then have a cyclist and then an enormous wide pavement with no sign of any pedestrians. Surely we can do better than this? There must be a better way of building roads.

Tobster86

fred246 wrote: »

I have been cycling everywhere since I went to Holland 10 years ago. My belief is that we should have proper dedicated cycle lanes as they do. This would encourage everyone to cycle because at the moment the average person won't cycle because of safety fears. Every road should have a section clearly marked for pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles. I find the highway code picture fascinating. To the left we have a vehicle driving on the side meant for opposing traffic therefore risking a head on collision. Then we have most of the road empty. We then have a cyclist and then an enormous wide pavement with no sign of any pedestrians. Surely we can do better than this? There must be a better way of building roads.

In principle I agree completely; but in practise and partly for historical reasons (generally around the cost of land in the UK) it just isn't practical, hence why the current facilities are at or over capacity, with no space either side to expand them.

The situation in Worcester is particularly ridiculous; there are plenty of cycling facilities but they are unclear, ambiguous, impractical and sometimes dangerous to use. The pavement on the other side of the road in the video is apparently actually a cycle path! West Mercia Police, as a result, have adopted an official policy of not enforcing pavement cycling unless it appears to be dangerous; and the general standard of cycling in Worcester is, in my opinion, poor.

Most Worcester cyclists are in their late teens/early twenties, on tiny unlit & brakeless BMXs, meandering all over the pavement, and stoned.