Help settle an argument

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 3050
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by Vantage »

kwackers wrote:What facts?

Fact: A guy on a bike moves out a couple of feet to overtake another vehicle he was coming up on.

Fact: The car behind had plenty of time to consider what was going on, more importantly they should have taken a teeny tiny amount of time to observe and predict.

Fact: The car sounded their horn whilst behind the cyclist and at a point when it was useless. i.e. the cyclist was at the side of the vehicle he was overtaking.

Fact: The motorist has supposedly sat a test and as such has a standard of driving that's legally required in order to satisfy their license conditions.

Fact: The cyclist has no such requirement - for all the driver knows it's a 12 year old with no road sense.


Did I miss anything?


For someone claiming to be observant, yes you did actually.

Fact: The cyclist failed to check for faster moving traffic behind prior to his overtake.

Fact: The cyclist then failed to indicate his intentions to other traffic.

Fact: The cyclist then took his attention off the road in front for an extended period to insult the driver behind whom he cut up due to said overtake.

At 0.38 sec in the video, the truck gets through the pinch point without infringing on the admittedly narrow cycle lane. That skinny little MX5? could have overtaken any cyclist there without risk. The cyclists stupidity alone caused all that commotion.

This is no different than travelling on a motorway at 70mph, changing lane to overtake a 60mph car in front and being hit from behind by an 80mph car which you didn't check for and failed to indicate to.
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by Postboxer »

Mark1978 wrote:A cyclist hating friend of mine shared this video

https://www.facebook.com/SpottedPompey/ ... 0/?fref=nf

Using it as an example of why cyclists are stupid / shouldn't be on the road etc because he moved 'out of the lane'

My reply was that his road positioning was entirely reasonable through the island and the car driver had no right to beep at him.

What's the thoughts of the assembled panel here?

Note I'm not talking about the falling off; which was entirely the cyclists own doing, but was the car driver right to beep?



Just thought I'd remind everyone of the original post. As already pointed out earlier in the thread, you can't use one example to rule that no cyclists should be allowed on the road.

Appears we're divided on whether it was ok to beep or not.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by kwackers »

Vantage wrote:This is no different than travelling on a motorway at 70mph, changing lane to overtake a 60mph car in front and being hit from behind by an 80mph car which you didn't check for and failed to indicate to.

No it isn't.

If the driver had intended to overtake the cyclist and leave enough space then it wouldn't have mattered there'd still be loads of space.
Incidentally, don't know about you but if I'm travelling along the motorway I pay attention to vehicles that *may* require to move out. Not everyone indicates and being "in the right" isn't the same as 'avoiding the issue in the first place'.
Now *that* is being observant. ;)

IMO the cyclist is responsible for their own safety, if they make a mistake they pay. What shouldn't happen is they pay for the mistakes of drivers that are inept and can't be bothered keeping an eye out or too lazy to make any form of prediction. Even the best cyclist on occasion may need to move a couple of feet either side - even if it's just due to a sudden gust of wind.
If you're not leaving space your at best an idiot and at worst a criminal. Reading this thread it's fast becoming obvious to me why so many drivers are literally getting away with murder because lets face it if cyclists think like this what must non-cyclists think?
Last edited by kwackers on 17 Jun 2015, 10:13am, edited 1 time in total.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by kwackers »

Vantage wrote:Probably because there are a couple 'knobs' (I'm quoting plus it seems ok to insult other forumites despite forum rules or there is favouritism going on) on this forum who will stick up for every cyclist regardless of whether they are in the right or wrong.

I don't stick up for every cyclist, nor do I even attempt to defend this cyclist (other than to rubbish some of the overly excited rubbish - like "erratic cycling"). I've posted many times about poor standards of cycling but IMO that's not what this thread is about.
If a cyclist wants to kill themselves then that's their decision, they're unlikely to kill anyone else.
Motorists on the other hand have a duty of care - one which they supposedly have been taught and tested on.

As for insults did I insult you directly? If so then I guess that's because you felt you'd fail the test.
You'd have to be a knob to not realise what could happen when coming up on a couple of cyclists
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by pwa »

Whilst accepting the argument that the driver of the Mazda should have anticipated the crap cyclist changing lanes with no indication or a look over his shoulder, I don't accept that the driver did not do exactly that. He may well have anticipated the daft overtaking of the cyclist, and held back in a responsible manner, but beeped out of petulance (a wrong thing to do) to express annoyance at the cyclist's lack of road sense.

The pinch point is an interesting matter in its own right. Freezing the picture with the other cyclist providing scale, I think a normal car might well have enough room to pass safely if it were close to the traffic island and not travelling too fast. A cautious pass at that point would not bother me if I were cycling there. A pass by a wider vehicle, or by a car at greater speed, would be a different matter.
User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 3050
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by Vantage »

kwackers wrote:
As for insults did I insult you directly? If so then I guess that's because you felt you'd fail the test.
You'd have to be a knob to not realise what could happen when coming up on a couple of cyclists


:lol:
I needed cheering up this morning!
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 3050
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by Vantage »

kwackers wrote:If a cyclist wants to kill themselves then that's their decision, they're unlikely to kill anyone else.
Motorists on the other hand have a duty of care - one which they supposedly have been taught and tested on.


Everyone has a duty of care.
Damage is damage. As I said in my first reply to this thread, the cyclist is lucky it wasn't a 40 ton truck he pulled out in front of. The driver of the truck wouldn't have been killed, but he/she would still have to deal with the trauma of killing someone through no fault of their own.
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by kwackers »

Vantage wrote:Everyone has a duty of care.
Damage is damage. As I said in my first reply to this thread, the cyclist is lucky it wasn't a 40 ton truck he pulled out in front of. The driver of the truck wouldn't have been killed, but he/she would still have to deal with the trauma of killing someone through no fault of their own.

If the truck killed someone who moved out by 2 feet then why would you think that was OK?

On another thread you're complaining about driver behaviour and how dangerous some roads are. Why is that? Seems to me that if you find such close overtaking to be safe then whats the issue?
My gripe here is IMO this is just another example of impatient motorists who can't be bothered waiting a few seconds until there's a decent opportunity to overtake safely. Had they been willing to do that the horn wouldn't have been needed.
User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 3050
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by Vantage »

kwackers wrote:
Vantage wrote:Everyone has a duty of care.
Damage is damage. As I said in my first reply to this thread, the cyclist is lucky it wasn't a 40 ton truck he pulled out in front of. The driver of the truck wouldn't have been killed, but he/she would still have to deal with the trauma of killing someone through no fault of their own.

If the truck killed someone who moved out by 2 feet then why would you think that was OK?

On another thread you're complaining about driver behaviour and how dangerous some roads are. Why is that? Seems to me that if you find such close overtaking to be safe then whats the issue?
My gripe here is IMO this is just another example of impatient motorists who can't be bothered waiting a few seconds until there's a decent opportunity to overtake safely. Had they been willing to do that the horn wouldn't have been needed.


Where did I say it was OK?

As to the other thread, there's close overtakes and there's close overtakes. The road in question is very fast (50-60mph), has endless blind crests, a few bends and on that particular day, a very low sun which was making forward vision very difficult even for me at my paltry 8mph.
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by [XAP]Bob »

You said through no fault of their own...

Travelling that close to a vulnerable road user is gambling, but with someone else's life.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by Postboxer »

When my brother learnt to drive HGV's, he was told to expect cyclists to fall out into the road, with their arms stretched above their head and sliding further out into the road.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by reohn2 »

Postboxer wrote:When my brother learnt to drive HGV's, he was told to expect cyclists to fall out into the road, with their arms stretched above their head and sliding further out into the road.


This is the basis of a duty of care and why motorists should give ample room to cyclists they're overtaking,not trying to squeeze past with no room given.
And more often than not only to be caught up at the next TL,something I find happens all too frequently IME.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
bogmyrtle
Posts: 967
Joined: 5 Mar 2008, 10:29pm

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by bogmyrtle »

I can't believe this is still going. I would like to invite the cyclist to my Primary 5 Bikeability 1 course but his language would need to improve or his parents will be sent for to take him home. The cyclist didn't look behind before he set off on the bus/cycle lane. Didn't check it was safe to overtake before passing the other cyclist. In fact the only time he looked behind was when the car driver hooted at him. Unfortunately that was the wrong time for him to be taking his eyes off the road and he wasn't looking where he was going when he was gesticuling and swearing.
The moral of this tale is, if you film yourself doing something stupid, keep quiet and destroy the evidence. I would also advise the cyclist to find some new friends.
A bike does more miles to the banana than a Porsche.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by reohn2 »

bogmyrtle wrote:I can't believe this is still going. I would like to invite the cyclist to my Primary 5 Bikeability 1 course but his language would need to improve or his parents will be sent for to take him home. The cyclist didn't look behind before he set off on the bus/cycle lane. Didn't check it was safe to overtake before passing the other cyclist. In fact the only time he looked behind was when the car driver hooted at him. Unfortunately that was the wrong time for him to be taking his eyes off the road and he wasn't looking where he was going when he was gesticuling and swearing.

Now tell me what would've happened if the motorist didn't honk his/her horn?
I'll give you a clue
Nothing.
Yes s/he would've been mildly annoyed,but forgot about it by journey's end or two miles,whichever came first.

The moral of this tale is, if you film yourself doing something stupid, keep quiet and destroy the evidence. I would also advise the cyclist to find some new friends.

There's no denying the guy's a grade A1 prat,that's a given,and his actions do nothing to promote cycling :evil: .
Let's hope he learns from it :roll:

But as has been posted umpteen times by others,the car driver should have anticipated his overtake,as pratcyclist was closing down the other cyclist PDQ.
Let him complete the overtake through the narrow pinch point,without the use of the horn.

Rule 1;- every other road user is an idiot,liable to do anything at any time.
Rule 2;- every other road user is a potential killer.
Rule 3;- always expect the unexpected.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Help settle an argument

Post by Tonyf33 »

bogmyrtle wrote:I can't believe this is still going. I would like to invite the cyclist to my Primary 5 Bikeability 1 course but his language would need to improve or his parents will be sent for to take him home. The cyclist didn't look behind before he set off on the bus/cycle lane. Didn't check it was safe to overtake before passing the other cyclist. In fact the only time he looked behind was when the car driver hooted at him. Unfortunately that was the wrong time for him to be taking his eyes off the road and he wasn't looking where he was going when he was gesticuling and swearing.
The moral of this tale is, if you film yourself doing something stupid, keep quiet and destroy the evidence. I would also advise the cyclist to find some new friends.


Wow, and you teach bikeability :!:
Do your lessons explain to the kids that even a slight error that harms no-one, doesn't hold anyone up will end up with them being hounded/honked at by motorists, from your take on things I bet they do :x
You're quite happy to lay into the cyclist but what about the due care from the motorist, you know, the one with the greater responsibility :roll:
Again repeated for the hard of reading!!!
HC rule 144

You MUST NOT
drive dangerously
drive without due care and attention
drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.
Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991

the cyclist has priority and the vehicle behind cannot just do as they like/break the law even if the road user in front isn't being perfect. Do you get on your horn to every motorist in front of you whom (obviously) is catching the vehicle in front and moves across their lane to overtake without using their mirror or signalling or do you hold back and wait until they've made their manoeuvre.

Jesus H Christ there are an awful lot of so called 'cyclists' on this forum with an absolutely disgusting, righteous disregard for the safety of other road users including vulnerable ones, one small error that hurts no-one and you're happy to tear into them and drive right up their chuff and blare your horn at them...bloody disgraceful attitude! :twisted:
Post Reply