Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

You didn't agree with it in post 321.

But you are agreeing now, so I guess the lesson is learned. Forget the IF, though, we should all now agree he was in the secondary position. You really would need to be blind not to see that from the video.

Lol, you are miss-understanding me even though I have spelled it out to you umpteen times.

No one has proven the OP was riding in the position he says he was. The footage dosn't prove it as you cannot see the bike or rider in the footage. So therefore my opinion stands.

I have conceded however that IF indeed the OP WAS riding within the 'secondary position' (and both he and the bike were completely within that area away for the kerb, then I would agree the BMW overtake was too close.

The only way to prove the situation is to have alternative video footage (from perhaps a following vehicle) to show the OP's true position before and during the overtake.

Now I don't know how many ways I have to paint this but I think I have explained why my opinion (and remember it is just that; an OPINION) is as it is more than enough times now and you ain't gunna change it.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Now I don't know how many ways I have to paint this but I think I have explained why my opinion (and remember it is just that; an OPINION) is as it is more than enough times now and you ain't gunna change it.

I know I can't change your opinion.

I can't change the view of a six day creationist who thinks the world is no more than 6000 years, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That doesn't mean that the six day creationist's opinions and views are scientifically valid.

Tobster86

Tilt wrote: »

I have conceded however that IF indeed the OP WAS riding within the 'secondary position' (and both he and the bike were completely within that area away for the kerb, then I would agree the BMW overtake was too close.

But I conceded very early on that the overtake 'was not the closest but not exactly textbook'. My objection was to his rude, aggressive behaviour (blasting the horn as he went past). Had he not have blasted the horn as he went past, this thread would never have existed; the event would have been dismissed as a very typical close overtake that ought to have left a bit more space along with the other 30-odd that happened that ride home.

You still haven't answered my question. If I was in primary position instead of secondary, would he have been right to respond to this with rude & aggressive behaviour, and why?

Tilt

Tobster86 wrote: »

But I conceded very early on that the overtake 'was not the closest but not exactly textbook'. My objection was to his rude, aggressive behaviour (blasting the horn as he went past). Had he not have blasted the horn as he went past, this thread would never have existed; the event would have been dismissed as a very typical close overtake that ought to have left a bit more space along with the other 30-odd that happened that ride home.

You still haven't answered my question. If I was in primary position instead of secondary, would he have been right to respond to this with rude & aggressive behaviour, and why?

In my opinion he (assuming it was a 'he') would of been entitled to give you a very short 'toot' on the horn to make you aware of his presence under the circumstances you describe.

diamond_dave

Been following this thread for some time now and I have to agree with OP - the driver was just being agressive. Absolutely no need to blast on the horn like that. Whenever I have passed a cyclist, motor bike, or whenever a tractor has pulled to the left in order to allow cars to pass, I always "toot" my horn or put up my hand in thanks. Little enough to do. If I'm on my bike and a driver has allowed me past or waved me through - the same applies. A simple wave of thanks is all that's needed.

esuhl

Tilt wrote: »

No one has proven the OP was riding in the position he says he was. The footage dosn't prove it as you cannot see the bike or rider in the footage. So therefore my opinion stands.

The primary and secondary positions are not objectively defined; they are abstract concepts.

It should be obvious that no one can "prove" a cyclist was or wasn't in the "primary position". You really to learn some elementary logic.

Tilt

esuhl wrote: »

The primary and secondary positions are not objectively defined; they are abstract concepts.

It should be obvious that no one can "prove" a cyclist was or wasn't in the "primary position". You really to learn some elementary logic.

Thank you Sherlock

brat

esuhl wrote: »

The primary and secondary positions are not objectively defined; they are abstract concepts.

It should be obvious that no one can "prove" a cyclist was or wasn't in the "primary position". You really to learn some elementary logic.

While agreeing with the basic logic in your post...

...Tobster's secondary position is absolutely clear from the video. Unless the camera was about one metre to the left of where Tobster said it was, this is not a primary position.

This road is one of those that challenges assertive cyclists. It is a 40mph road about 100 metres from a 30 limit. It is quite a busy road, and cyclists will be fairly visible on it, so they will be keen to let traffic flow past without requiring them to go fully into the offside lane to pass. However, there may be a tendency for motorists to do what the BMW did, although not always at his speed or arrogance; so the cyclist will wonder whether the best option is to block the lane for his safety and risk being abused by following motorists, or completely concede responsibility for his safety to the following motorists, a small percentage of whom are clearly not to be trusted.

I prefer not to use roads like this if I can.

Tobster86

brat wrote: »

This road is one of those that challenges assertive cyclists.
...
so the cyclist will wonder whether the best option is to block the lane for his safety and risk being abused by following motorists, or completely concede responsibility for his safety to the following motorists, a small percentage of whom are clearly not to be trusted.

My colleague who cycles (and is more experienced than I am) does take primary position there.

Although he also rides a modern carbon bike; not a twenty year old Raleigh 10-speed, so is probably doing 30+ there.