Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

brat

armyknife wrote: »

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.

I should have taken a leaf out of their book today rather than attempt a 10k run home from work - wet, windy, cold...
...but worth it!

Norman_Castle

Tilt wrote: »

Again, I cannot see how this accurately demonstrates the position of the cyclist in the road. In my opinion (being a semi-pro video camera man) without seeing any part of the bike in the footage, it appears that the centre of the picture (which I am taking as the centre line of the bike's position) is a bit more than 3 feet from the kerb PLUS (as I pointed out above) the cyclist dosn't appear to be riding in a true straight fashion. Seems he/she is wobbling a bit due to the speed he/she is peddling.

Does it appear to you the cyclist is riding in the damp track left on the road from the nearside wheel of the vehicles?. This is about three feet from the kerb.

As a semi pro camera man do you consider a moving cyclist or cycle a stable camera mount or do you think some movement may be noticeable?.

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

From its speed it doesn't appear to have waited at all.

Retrogamer

Maybe i should upload a video i have of a truck overtaking me so it can go through a red light then wait for people to tell me it's my fault

Retrogamer

MacMickster wrote: »

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

That seems rather hypocritical comment considering the context.

MacMickster wrote: »

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?

It depends on the obstruction.

If there was a possibility that the "obstruction" could suddenly move position on that lane, then yes. Yes i would.

Norman_Castle

Retrogamer wrote: »

Maybe i should upload a video i have of a truck overtaking me so it can go through a red light then wait for people to tell me it's my fault

It was your fault. You're a cyclist.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

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 cyclist was in the secondary position, the correct position for this road, approximately one metre from the kerb edge. It provides good safety for the rider by riding a decent distance from the kerb detritus, but doesn't (shouldn't) antagonise motorists too much.

The primary position in contrast is a position designed to 'own' the lane in certain circumstances for their own safety, to prevent motorists from considering an overtake.

boliston

Tilt wrote: »

Again, I cannot see how this accurately demonstrates the position of the cyclist in the road. In my opinion (being a semi-pro video camera man) without seeing any part of the bike in the footage, it appears that the centre of the picture (which I am taking as the centre line of the bike's position) is a bit more than 3 feet from the kerb PLUS (as I pointed out above) the cyclist dosn't appear to be riding in a true straight fashion. Seems he/she is wobbling a bit due to the speed he/she is peddling.

A cyclist will generally wobble LESS the faster they go - I would estimate the cyclist to be going about 20mph from the video, so not particularly fast. Racing cyclists often are doing 40mph+ on the flat and 60mph+ downhill.

MacMickster

Retrogamer wrote: »

That seems rather hypocritical comment considering the context.



It depends on the obstruction.

If there was a possibility that the "obstruction" could suddenly move position on that lane, then yes. Yes i would.

Me trolling? I believed that these fora were places for healthy debate between those with differing viewpoints. Apparently I was mistaken and this particular sub-forum is merely intended for a small bunch of lycra louts to agree with each other. My mistake clearly.

As for the obstruction suddenly moving position in the lane, if that obstruction has a driver or rider then they should not make any manoeuvre without checking that it is safe to do so and then signalling their intention. If they are not sure that it is safe then they should slow or stop. The car driver in this instance made (in my opinion) the correct assessment that his manoeuvre was safe but made certain of that by warning the cyclist in case the cyclist was unaware of his presence and carried out an unexpected manoeuvre of his own without taking the same care.

brat

MacMickster wrote: »

Me trolling? I believed that these fora were places for healthy debate between those with differing viewpoints. Apparently I was mistaken and this particular sub-forum is merely intended for a small bunch of lycra louts to agree with each other. My mistake clearly.

As for the obstruction suddenly moving position in the lane, if that obstruction has a driver or rider then they should not make any manoeuvre without checking that it is safe to do so and then signalling their intention. If they are not sure that it is safe then they should slow or stop. The car driver in this instance made (in my opinion) the correct assessment that his manoeuvre was safe but made certain of that by warning the cyclist in case the cyclist was unaware of his presence and carried out an unexpected manoeuvre of his own without taking the same care.

From the evidence of this video, the gap between the BMW and the cyclist is likely to have been less than half a metre. That's not enough. A driver needs to give a cyclist sufficient room to negotiate round small pot holes, glass, stones, twigs, oil deposits etc. Highway Code rules 212 and 213 make these points very clearly .

I don't like the Highway Code advice about give a cyclist as much room as a car when overtaking. It's too ambiguous. An advisory measured gap would be far more useful and less open to interpretation. Other countries have adopted the minimum of 1.0 metre rule for town , and 1.5 metres out of town. I'd like to see those measurements included in the next edition of the HC.
To be fair, the majority of motorists do show consideration and personal responsibility, and give cyclists this gap. However this thread shows that there's still a job to convince some motorists of their responsibilities around vulnerable road users.

modsandmockers

boliston wrote: »

Racing cyclists often are doing 40mph+ on the flat and 60mph+ downhill.

On the highway?