Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

modsandmockers

Tobster86 wrote: »

And that differs from my actions how?

You didn't move to the left?

brat

tight_scotsman wrote: »

I am definitely not a bully. I never have or never will intentionally put a cyclist in danger. They are good enough at doing that themselves.

I'm sure some are. Many of us believe it's extremely important to get our road positioning right for our safety, and to help motorists (many of whom have a brain fart around bikes) get past.

tight_scotsman wrote: »

If cyclist know everything I have pointed out then why do they keep getting themselves into bother with other traffic.?

And what have you pointed out so far?
A)I am an arrogant cyclist
B)Other road users don't like arrogant cyclists.
C)Some of your HGV/PCV colleagues would be happy to murder cyclists for getting in their way.

Hmmm... :think: Could do better...

Here's what I mean by controlling overtakes, remembering that I said "I control the overtakes when I need to."

This is a pic of a road I've just cycled along. IIRC it's 5 metres wide. The bend ahead is blind.
If I was to position myself in a submissive position as in A, about 0.5 metres from the road edge, I'm effectively inviting vehicles to have a go at overtaking. The driver of the vehicle defined by the 4 black lines may feel that he has an opportunity to get past by driving very closely to me thus leaving an (almost) adequate offside space in the unlikely event that something might come the other way.

This puts the cyclist in a risky position if the car overtakes as I've shown. There is insufficient room for the cyclist to be safe throughout the overtake; and if a car does come the other way, the overtaker will often attempt to squeeze the cyclist still further to avoid contact with the approaching car.


Alternatively, if the cyclist controls his lane and takes the primary position as shown in B below, he creates space for himself. He also leaves plenty of space for an overtake. However the car driver now realises that in order to overtake he needs to go fully on to the other side of the road, where he may come into direct contact with an approaching vehicle. His instincts tell him that would be a daft manoeuvre, so he holds back until he clears the bend, where there's a lovely opportunity to pass, at which point I pull in by about half a metre and raise my right hand to acknowledge the driver's patience.


I trust you understand now what I mean by controlling overtakes when I need to. Not arrogance - assertiveness.

tight_scotsman wrote: »

Like I say I mean no harm to any cyclists. But the ones who continue to act like they are immortal soon find out the exact opposite is the case.

Part of my work involves the management and investigation of serious road traffic collisions, so I think I know better than most how they are caused, and what strategies are best to avoid being a victim.

PDC

Was it the BMW who hit the horn or the vehicle coming toward you who he nearly hit in overtaking you?

Either way an impatient and careless/dangerous manoeuvre.

modsandmockers

tight_scotsman wrote: »

You are still an arrogant pratt. What happens when you come across a driver who is just that little bit more arrogant than you ?

Let me tell you.....you end up DEAD

Your road position may be the best one for you but you might still end up in the ditch.

I won't be commenting any more on this thread. It's a waste of time both sides of the argument think they are right. So it's just going round in circles.

What would be really helpful would be for the government to offer some clear guidance about the status of cyclists.

Yes - cycling has the potential to reduce pollution and improve health, but it needs its own infrastructure. In the meantime, the money which is being spent on ineffective but politically-correct cycle priority schemes is just causing more and more aggravation.

Tobster86

tight_scotsman wrote: »

You are still an arrogant pratt. What happens when you come across a driver who is just that little bit more arrogant than you ?

Let me tell you.....you end up DEAD

Your road position may be the best one for you but you might still end up in the ditch.

I won't be commenting any more on this thread. It's a waste of time both sides of the argument think they are right. So it's just going round in circles.

I want to respect you TS, you clearly have good intentions and experience, but reactions like this disappoint me.

The example given by Brat is sound. To not follow it would not only disadvantage the cyclist, but would also disadvantage the 95% of well intentioned drivers, for the sake of avoiding (with poor effectiveness) the minority of impatient & dangerous ones.


Modsandmockers - I clearly do move to the left.


PDC - It was the BMW as it overtook that sounded its horn. The camcorder's microphones don't make this clear in the video, but it was very obvious when it occurred.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

CycleCraft is the basis for the syllabus of the voluntary Bikeability training scheme - that is not the same thing as official advice.

Bikeability comes under the auspices of the Department for Transport. That's about as official as training and advice gets.

In court, the Highway Code would be regarded as the authoritative publication. The ROSPA endorsement on the back cover of CycleCraft acknowledges the invaluable advice that the book contains, and recommends it as essential reading - it does not say that it should be regarded as a set of gospel truths. It is easy to find cyclist bloggers who have serious doubts about the wisdom of lane-hogging.

You're conflating two different ideas. Cyclecraft is not a book of rules. It's advice. I've quoted both Highway Code and Cyclecraft in court, and gave both equal weight for the points raised from each book. Cyclecraft is essential reading for cyclists who wish to become more assertive, safer cyclists. Like you say, not every cyclist will be confident enough to hold the primary position, so all aspects of Cyclecraft is not for every cyclist.

modsandmockers wrote: »

CycleCraft is based upon the ‘vehicular’ style of cycling. If a motor vehicle had been travelling at 20mph on a straight and clear stretch of single carriageway road, then it is quite likely that it would have been pulled over.

Tractors pull over every so often if vehicles cannot pass. If a train of cars can't get past a cyclist the cyclist should pull over after a reasonable amount of time - certainly not as soon as the first car comes up behind.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Whilst lane-hogging, I think many cyclists are in breach of Highway Code rules 67-68 -

67 You should … be aware of traffic coming up behind you

Cyclists are. The highway code is also clear about being overtaken. It says #168 "If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed"

modsandmockers wrote: »

68 You MUST NOT … ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner (my italics)

I cycle a road occasionally where I take the lane for about 3/4 mile at 25mph. It's too twisty for a secondary position to be safe. The speed limit is 30mph, so over the distance I hold traffic up for max 18 seconds if they wish to stay behind. I consider that to be acceptable.
The Daniel Cadden case may be worth a read.

Appeal court judge said
"causing only a short delay to drivers did not constitute “inconsiderate cycling”."

modsandmockers wrote: »

I also think that the Highway Code shows no enthusiasm for the vehicular style of cycling -

74 If you are turning right … it may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.
77 (on roundabouts) You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should … be aware that drivers may not easily see you

The ROSPA website contains no reference to CycleCraft, nor to the idea of Assertive Cycling. It does however still promote the idea of Defensive Driving.

The Highway Code will not tell road users to do what they don't feel comfortable or confident with, despite the fact that that action may actually be safer if properly executed using skill, experience and confidence. Why do you choose not to understand this?

modsandmockers wrote: »

Here is a quote from the introduction pages of CycleCraft -

“... a cyclist is too vulnerable to follow rigid rules irrespective of the risk. CycleCraft shows how to respond to actual conditions rather than acting as a strict rule book”

Praise the Lord! I think he's got it!

brat

tight_scotsman wrote: »

You are still an arrogant pratt. What happens when you come across a driver who is just that little bit more arrogant than you ?

Let me tell you.....you end up DEAD

Your road position may be the best one for you but you might still end up in the ditch.

I won't be commenting any more on this thread. It's a waste of time both sides of the argument think they are right. So it's just going round in circles.

Hang around. There's stuff you might learn.

modsandmockers

Tobster86 wrote: »

Modsandmockers - I clearly do move to the left.

Yes - was it in anticipation, or was it by surprise?

frisbeej

tight_scotsman wrote: »

You are still an arrogant pratt. What happens when you come across a driver who is just that little bit more arrogant than you ?

Let me tell you.....you end up DEAD

Your road position may be the best one for you but you might still end up in the ditch.

I won't be commenting any more on this thread. It's a waste of time both sides of the argument think they are right. So it's just going round in circles.

And if you meekly creep along at the edge of the road, it's not just the "arrogant" drivers that overtakes you in a dangerous place, its the pair of 80 year old grannies in their Nissan Micra that do a constant 37mph everywhere.


It's disappointing that someone who claims to have 30 years of experience driving an HGV has so little understanding of other road users.


What's the word for it...arrogant.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

What would be really helpful would be for the government to offer some clear guidance about the status of cyclists.

Status? In what context?