Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Tilt

Retrogamer wrote: »

Fixed that for you.
The cyclist didn't make the car driver do anything.
The car driver decided to attempt a dangerous overtake all on their own.

In these circumstances, with how far the cyclist is out the only safe overtake is to use the other side of the road. The same way you'd use it if it was a slow moving vehicle like a tractor.

In short, motorists shouldn't attempt to overtake the cyclist on this type of road when other cars are coming towards them.
The cyclist will be cycling so far out from the side to discourage motorists from trying to overtake when other vehicles are approaching. I do the same. Otherwise everyone will try and overtake and force you into the kerb when other cars are comnig towards you.

It didn't need fixing.

And now you seem to be confirming that the cyclist was riding along what appears to be a straight road (in a rural area so probably subject to the national speed limit) while taking the 'primary position'.

The only reason I can see why the cyclist would do this is to compete with the pace of following traffic rather than allow it to pass safely by. Had the cyclist been riding at a slightly more relaxed pace, he/she perhaps would of been able to ride in a more consistently straight and steady manner thus allowing the car(s) to pass more safely. Having said that, the Beemer driver (seeing that the cyclist was peddling "furiously") should of been perhaps a bit more weary of passing a cyclist riding in an unpredictable manner.

frisbeej

Tilt wrote: »

No "I" don't. I factor in the prevailing traffic conditions which I am presented with at the time. My opinion was assuming the BMW's stance.

Your judgement:

Tilt wrote: »

Not sure. Depends on how long the car had been waiting to pass.

Tilt wrote: »

My friend, if you had the slightest clue on my driving experience, you would deffo eat those words. You shouldn't presume so much :cool:

The only answer is "waited". Experience is irrelevant when poor judgement ends someone's life.

Tilt

frisbeej wrote: »

The only answer is "waited". Experience is irrelevant when poor judgement ends someone's life.

Your interpretation of my comment is flawed i'm afraid. If you read it again you should detect that I was attempting to give the BMW's driver's stance and not of my own. Hence me saying "Depends on how long the car had been waiting to pass".

What I may (or may not of done) in the same scenario is pure speculation on your part.

Retrogamer

Tilt wrote: »

It didn't need fixing.

So the BMW didn't overtake due to being impatient?
I find it strange you try and blame the cyclist for something the BMW driver made a decision to do.

Tilt wrote: »

The only reason I can see why the cyclist would do this is to compete with the pace of following traffic rather than allow it to pass safely by. Had the cyclist been riding at a slightly more relaxed pace, he/she perhaps would of been able to ride in a more consistently straight and steady manner thus allowing the car(s) to pass more safely. Having said that, the Beemer driver (seeing that the cyclist was peddling "furiously") should of been perhaps a bit more weary of passing a cyclist riding in an unpredictable manner.

I just told you in the post before why the cyclist was probably cycling so far out.
It's to discourage motorists from trying to overtake whilst oncoming traffic is approaching.

If the motorists were to overtake the cyclist when another car is coming it doesn't matter on the cyclists road position. Even on the far left it would still be dangerous. The motorist would either be over the line and in the same lane as oncoming traffic, or else they'd be inches from the cyclist forcing them to the kerb.
The rational solution (and what i do because of the same reasons) is to cycle further out forcing the vehicles only to overtake when the road is clear.

The other reason is because the road is cambered towards the left when it rains that's where all the wet leaves / twigs etc end up and where the most potholes are due to water errosion

Seriously Tilt, it's not difficult to overtake cyclists on the other side of the road safely. I do it all the time as although i'm a cyclist now and then i'm a motorist daily.

modsandmockers

The level of cyclist aggression on this thread is at least as great as the level of driver aggression which the motorist showed on the original video clip - thank goodness we’re not all in the same room!

I’m not really sure why the OP posted the video except possibly to share the pleasure of the holier-than-thou attitude which is fairly common in the modern cycling fraternity. But, given the OP’s subsequent absence from the thread, maybe we are all victims of some kind of trolling exercise.

If the cyclist was aware of the approaching motorist, then it would have been possible for him/her to make the overtake safer by making a bit more space. But it also appears that the OP more or less accepts that the overtake was not in fact dangerous. If the cyclist was not aware of the approaching car, then the question is ‘why not?’.

One of the reasons, probably the main reason in fact, why I have almost completely given up cycling on the road is because I have reached the stage where it causes me physical pain to keep twisting round to see what is happening behind me. I gave up trying to find an effective rearview mirror years ago. Maybe the headcam could be made to serve a useful purpose by wearing it back to front, and linking it to a screen on the handle bar.

It’s all very well for cyclists to exercise their right to ride in the path of the motor vehicles with whom they are supposed to share the road, but it does nothing to enhance their own safety. On the type of road in question, the national speed limit for HGVs is currently 40mph, but the government is about to increase it to 50mph because they have at last recognised that the principal effect of the existing limit is to generate road rage and encourage dangerous overtaking. It’s a pity they can’t do something about those cyclists whose behaviour creates the same effect.

frisbeej

Tilt wrote: »

Your interpretation of my comment is flawed i'm afraid. If you read it again you should detect that I was attempting to give the BMW's driver's stance and not of my own. Hence me saying "Depends on how long the car had been waiting to pass".

What I may (or may not of done) in the same scenario is pure speculation on your part.

Nope, when asked whether "the" car should have overtaken or should "it" have waited, you then introduced the factor of how long they had already been waiting.

MacMickster

Retrogamer wrote: »

I don't think this is the case.

You seem to be suggesting the car driver used the horn to let the cyclist know they are there. This would presume the car driver had the cyclists best intentions foremost. This looks to be nonsense.

If you seen a cyclist wobbling or you were worried they might sway in front of your car what is the safer option.

To slow down and overtake the cyclist when the road is clear giving as much room as possible.

Or

Overtake the cyclist closely and on the same side of the road as them at high speed, whilst another car is coming towards you whilst beeping the horn potentially causing the cyclist to wobble / swerve by startling them

Why don't you think that the car driver was warning the cyclist of his presence? The horn should only ever be used as a warning.

He overtook in a reasonable manner allowing plenty of room. The road is certainly wide enough for a car to be parked with room for cars going in both directions to safely pass at the same time. The cyclist was not riding as wide as a parked car.

The only poor behaviour that I have seen on that video was from the idiot aggressive cyclist although he may merely be a sufferer of Tourette's). The follow-up posting of a video, with the suggestion that he regularly considers wasting police time with such matters doesn't cast him in the best of lights does it?

armyknife

The rainy weather seems to have brought the Trolls out in force today, wasting their lifespan as they've got nothing better to do with it and trying to suck you in, you however do have something better.

brat

MacMickster wrote: »

I do think that he should take this video to the police as I consider that it probably provides sufficient evidence of the offence of cycling furiously.

If you actually knew what this offence was, you might stop using it as an example rather than make a fool of yourself each time you mention it.

MacMickster

Retrogamer wrote: »

I just told you in the post before why the cyclist was probably cycling so far out.
It's to discourage motorists from trying to overtake whilst oncoming traffic is approaching.

If the motorists were to overtake the cyclist when another car is coming it doesn't matter on the cyclists road position. Even on the far left it would still be dangerous.

At this point it is quite clear that you are trolling.

If you drive regularly are you really saying that you would never pass any obstruction if it involved a wheel crossing the centre line, even if the road is clearly wide enough and safe enough to do so?