cyclists turned right when i overtook

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Bingo. All kraken's philosophical fluff and self-righteousness blown away in one quick calculation that sums up the situation. Given his new-found love of immutable facts, he'll enjoy this one. I expect that in response, he'll come up with some nonsense about how time dilation caused distance contraction and that you cannot possibly comment as an observer because your frame of reference differs from his. Special relativity causes everyone else's view of the collision to differ from his own.

I'm not sure we'll ever see the likes of this thread again. 30 pages of angry, defensive and inconsistent wriggling for an accident the OP belatedly claims never happened. Bizarre but amusing.

Nope, try again

Fat_Walt

kraken, are you a Volvo driver?

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

Previously i made a reference to your stupidity by using a phrase that has the same meaning as swine manure. Sadly admin decided to delete this.
So from now on every single time you make this mistake I am going to say
oink oink.

Was that when you reckoned you knew it was me that had reported you, and various people pointed out that it was them?

hugheskevi

3 seconds is MORE than enough time to safely overtake a cyclist.

The length of a car is about 4.5 metres, and a bike is about 1.7m. The speed differential assuming the car is travelling at 30mph and the bike at 20mph is 4.5 metres per second. The length of the car and the bike combined is about 6.2 metres. From the moment the front of the car is level with the back of the bike to the time the back of the car is level with the front of the bike will take 1.4 seconds.

The manoeuver requires you to overtake a moving vehicle whilst leaving a sufficiently wide distance (ie being in the adjacent lane), then move back in front of the vehicles to progress through the part of the road that is a single lane. It will take 1.4 seconds to be in front of the cyclist, plus additional time to build up a safe distance before moving left in front of the cyclists. Assume you build up a 2 second gap (based on the cyclists speed) before moving back left. That is a gap of 17.8 metres, which will take 4 seconds to build up.

That is a total of 5.4 seconds, and you still need to move left to proceed through the hazard after that time. 3 seconds is nowhere near enough time to complete the overtake safely, without overtaking far too closely to the cyclists and/or cutting back in front of them dangerously. As you found out.

Also this was a clear road with clear visibility of the road ahead

A clear view of an approaching hazard. Given the distances stated, it would seem prudent to slow to follow the cyclists through the hazard at a safe distance before overtaking once safely through the hazard. The additional time this would take is about 5 seconds, give or take a second or two.

The only reason there was any potential for harm is because the cyclist changed direction without warning. I was able to respond to this quickly enough - surely this is proof that i was driving safely and carefully.

A safe and careful driver would not be in the position of needing to respond. Even if it were a single cyclist it would still be a bad decision to overtake so close to a hazard. The presence of two cyclists doubles the various conflicts which could happen so even greater caution should be applied.

Aylesbury_Duck

hugheskevi, I'm afraid your admirably patient and rational analysis of the situation is wasted. kraken is unwilling (perhaps unable?) to do the arithmetic himself and as 30 pages have comprehensively proved, he is unwilling to entertain any contribution that doesn't fit his absolute certainty of his own innocence. I have no idea why he started this thread on a discussion forum when actually what he believes he has done is to post an absolute statement of truth. He'd have been better off submitting his statement to a newspaper. Then pesky people like you and I wouldn't be mean and pick holes in an already heavily perforated story.

Richard53

To be honest, by a mixture of hubris, bad temper and poor logic, he has kept a ridiculous argument going for almost 600 posts. You have to give him 8/10 for that.

kraken776

Fat_Walt wrote: »

kraken, are you a Volvo driver?

Oh deer god no

I used to be a white van driver,
but more recently i upgraded to being a BMW driver.

kraken776

hugheskevi wrote: »

The length of a car is about 4.5 metres, and a bike is about 1.7m. The speed differential assuming the car is travelling at 30mph and the bike at 20mph is 4.5 metres per second. The length of the car and the bike combined is about 6.2 metres. From the moment the front of the car is level with the back of the bike to the time the back of the car is level with the front of the bike will take 1.4 seconds.

The manoeuver requires you to overtake a moving vehicle whilst leaving a sufficiently wide distance (ie being in the adjacent lane), then move back in front of the vehicles to progress through the part of the road that is a single lane. It will take 1.4 seconds to be in front of the cyclist, plus additional time to build up a safe distance before moving left in front of the cyclists. Assume you build up a 2 second gap (based on the cyclists speed) before moving back left. That is a gap of 17.8 metres, which will take 4 seconds to build up.

That is a total of 5.4 seconds, and you still need to move left to proceed through the hazard after that time. 3 seconds is nowhere near enough time to complete the overtake safely, without overtaking far too closely to the cyclists and/or cutting back in front of them dangerously. As you found out.



A clear view of an approaching hazard. Given the distances stated, it would seem prudent to slow to follow the cyclists through the hazard at a safe distance before overtaking once safely through the hazard. The additional time this would take is about 5 seconds, give or take a second or two.



A safe and careful driver would not be in the position of needing to respond. Even if it were a single cyclist it would still be a bad decision to overtake so close to a hazard. The presence of two cyclists doubles the various conflicts which could happen so even greater caution should be applied.

one question
when was the last timer you saw a driver overtake a cyclist, and then from the moment his rear had passed the cyclists front wait a whole 2 seconds before moving back over.

Car_54

kraken776 wrote: »

Oh deer god no

I used to be a white van driver,
but more recently i upgraded to being a BMW driver.

That may help explain a lot.

custardy

kraken776 wrote: »

one question
when was the last timer you saw a driver overtake a cyclist, and then from the moment his rear had passed the cyclists front wait a whole 2 seconds before moving back over.

When dealing with a vulnerable road user. You don't feel 2 seconds is worth it vs life/injury?
Look at the clock on what you are typing on,see how little 2 seconds is.