Safe Speed Forums

He may well have thought that DCB and maybe the style, ours or his, got in the way of the substance which is a shame because I'd like to have quizzed him on something.

He makes a good point and I agree that it's good and bad road users, not just cyclists. I probably get an equal amount of near misses in the car but because my life isn't threatened anything like to the same extent I am happier to 'let it go' instead of bellowing out the window shaking my fist.

I wouldn't mind having a camera on my bike TBH, both cycle and motorbike. I would have accumulated quite a few SMIDSY's over the years. I'd loved to have had one when a motorist's clipped my elbow trying to squeeze between me and an oncoming car and when I caught him up he was also using a mob! (I know I mentioned that story here some time ago). But there’s another side of me which thinks what is the world coming to when the answer to everything is a damn camera. Sadly, because we live in a greedy selfish dog-eat-dog society, that seems to be where we are heading and a CCTV helped me out just recently.

The one issue where I profoundly disagree with GrumpCyclist, and this is my quizzedness, is this Primary Positioning. That is absolute madness IMO and I don't care if it is written as good practice by some authority on the subject. I wouldn’t dream of doing that and I cannot believe for one second it is either safer for the cyclist or good road manners. If you are positioned such that you are taking up the road and preventing drivers from overtaking how different is that to hogging two lanes of a dual carriageway at a slow speed in your car? It is inconsiderate and inflammatory to other road users.

I am about a foot from the curb, or less, when I cycle so that vehicles can pass me in the hope that if I am courteous to them, they will reciprocate. On the stretch near me I am well inside the green cycle lane which means there's even more room between me and the traffic. How is that not good sense and as Steve pointed out with the other clip and the HGV driver, that cyclist was riding as though the roads were built just for him. (I'm still not saying the driver was in the right but the cyclist isn't doing himself any favours and why didn't he look to the left on the approach to the island? Prevention is better than cure even if you are in the right.

I’m not going to try it but I’m as sure as I can be that if I rode to work in a PP on the road I would soon come to blows by a vexed driver. The clip we saw earlier of that van driver may well have been provoked by the cyclist hogging much more of the road than he needed; at least that’s how it looked to me. What happened after was dangerous and unforgivable of the van driver and I’m glad he was prosecuted but perhaps it’s also a case of two wrongs don’t make a right.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

If cyclists want to engage in "primary positioning" then they also need to take on board Rule 169 of the Highway Code

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Tone.

I have never heard the term primary position before but, from the context I think it means the same as what Richard Ballantine calls "The High Side". If that is so the idea is that it allow the cyclist to prevent the motorist overtaking him when the cyclist does not think it is safe. For example at an island in the road: if the cyclist keeps close to the kerb a motorist would be able to squeeze past with a few inches clearance. And some idiot will try to do it and is quite likely to clip the cyclist with his wing mirror. By riding a yard out from the kerb you make the positive statement that it is neither safe nor possible to overtake. Another situation is when turning left. If you keep close to the kerb it is not uncommon for a following vehicle to overtake as he starts to turn and end up forcing the cyclist to brake sharply or even clip his front wheel.

When passing parked cars the High Side keeps you clear of carelessly opened doors and makes you more visible to cars emerging from side roads on the left. Also the area close to the kerb is often the most potholed and litter strewn part of the road.

But I agree that one should, as in a car, always cooperate to make overtaking as easy as possible when it is safe to do so.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Excuse me?

Let me recap:

Does that sound like I laid any blame for that near miss on the cyclist? Of course not.

I cannot help but notice the strong irony within your claims.


My bold


I think you need to re-read what I said in my post. It seems it is you that had a perception that only you jumped to, without first checking the context of my post.

My point after that word "however" was that this person "magnatom" who is one of the few who indeed suffers a disproportionate number of bad events, is one of a few also clearly needlessly positions themselves inappropriately and does so without any consideration of the circumstances - at odds with H.C. rule 63.

This is perfectly clear. If you wish to continue to portray otherwise, then the last laugh is going to be at your expense and will be your own doing.


Also,

My earlier correction of botach's error is further proof of your own error; it is obvious that I knew that cyclist could not have held up that HGV. Any continuance of your opinion would be totally irrational.
It looks like your "most extreme case" (little old me) is actually your most extreme cock-up!


So far, so very bad!
It seems you are indeed one of the folks who posts videos events taken when riding. Let's see if your subsequent responses will actually lend even further credence to my first response within this thread.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yes, I can see the point at islands and pinch points, but as a general practice in urban traffic conditions it amounts to deliberate obstruction.

You might have come across this in Macclesfield.


Indeed, and I'm prepared to forgive cyclists briefly mounting the pavement to facilitate an overtake.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

The points that Botach makes regarding the tanker incident, part of which Big Tone unfortunately agreed with, is so wrong that it should not go unchallenged.

First, SPEED:

Botach claims that the rider didn't slow down for the roundabout and asks "WHAT DISTANCE HE COULD EXPECT TO STOP IN". That was based on a look at the video and reliance on "perception", which is quite absurd when watching a video on YouTube. It is my perception that the cyclist clearly did slow down, but I can no more support that simply from perception than Botach can support his claims. So, let's apply a little science to the issue.

First, the answer to the shouted (capitals) question is: he could expect to stop in a distance that would allow him to escape being squashed by an idiot tanker driver who ignores the rules of the road. The proof of that is that he did indeed stop in time. If he had assumed the tanker would stop, he would be dead now, so clearly he didn't assume that.

Regarding his speed itself, I would estimate that the distance from the line at the entrance to the roundabout to the point at which he stopped is about 6m. On a dry road, the minimum stopping distance, excluding reaction time, for a bicycle at 10mph is 6m [refs 1 and 2]. However, let's use 11m instead, which puts the speed at between 13mph and 15mph [ibid]. That is not an excessive speed to enter the roundabout, particularly when you consider he has probably slowed from about 25 to 30 mph on the approach road.

So, your argument about speed just doesn't stand up.

Second, OBSERVATION:

Again, you are making wild assumptions based on your flawed perceptions from the video clip. The fact is that, when you see the camera rotate by a certain number of degrees, the eyes of the cyclist will be rotating by two or three times that amount. As you pointed out, the camera rotates to the side a few times on the approach road; those times are when the cyclist is actually looking backwards over his shoulder to maintain awareness of what (if anything) is behind.

On the approach to the roundabout, he does indeed scan to the left for hazards. In fact, as he crosses the threshold of the roundabout, you can actually see the tanker approaching on the left of the frame. At that point, his eyes will be scanning even further down that approach road, seeing the tanker and anything else that might be there.

So your argument about observation has no basis.

As he enters the roundabout, his speed appears to decrease dramatically, probably because he thinks there is a possibility that the tanker might not stop. But that is only my perception from the video, so I won't use that in my argument.

Third, ROAD POSITION:

An experienced cyclist travelling along that open approach road will be moving at something like 25 to 30 mph. At that kind of speed, it would be quite inappropriate to be riding down the cycle lane. That would give him no room to maneouvre if it becomes necessary, and would encourage any idiot drivers to pass him too close, at excessive speed [Ref 3 and 4]. He is a road vehicle and, particularly at that speed, needs to behave and be treated like one.

The same principle applies to his positioning on the roundabout. There is absolutely no doubt that the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be on a roundabout is near the edge, where he is less likely to be seen. His use of the full width of the carriageway is also correct as the avoidance of any sharp turns reduces the risk of his skidding on any surface oil that might be there. This is a single lane roundabout, so nobody has any business to be trying to pass him, and in any case there is nobody behind or to the right.

So, your argument about road position, whilst a matter of opinion, is unconvincing to say the least.

The cyclist did everything right and thankfully, as a result, is still here to tell the tale.

[Ref 1] "Cyclecraft", John Franklin, p52, 2007, The stationery Office.
[Ref 2] "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities", American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1999. (http://www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO_1999_BikeBook.pdf) (See formula on page 41)
[Ref 3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3N6mJsLUDE
[Ref 4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuYqQNLlDY

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Gonna answer my question Grumpy?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

My highlighting, added to the text the you yourself quoted. Literally the letter of the Highway Code!


There you go again, making wild, unfounded accusations against someone you have never even met! Rule 63? Read your own quotation above! (I also addressed this in my last message. I know you will disagree with my argument, but it is backed up by a lot of respected authorities who have studied the issue far more extensively than you or I.)


Oh, for goodness sake!


What?


Yes, I said that right from the start. What exactly is your point? Why is this such a problem for you? Do you feel this insecure about all of the buses that are taking video of you all of the time?

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Back calculations shows this cyclist was actually doing an average of 21-22mph, so not so inappropriate to use the cycle lane!
If even that speed is deemed to inappropriate, then he should slow down - this isn't a race, is it?


There is some truth to this. There is another issue: predictable behaviour.
I noticed the phenomenally inappropriate road positioning on the roundabout.
This rider was in the middle of the carriageway, then panned towards the left on the entry, then went all the way to the right hand side of the roundabout, and was still there when he was on his exit slip. This means he went from centre, to the left, to the right, then back to the left, in order to continue straight on. This goes against H.C. and is is not any safe way to ride a bike. It is unpredictable behaviour, done for the sake of getting somewhere as fast as possible.

Based on that, I could almost understand the HGV driver for believing the cyclist was not taking that exit, not that it is any excuse for the driver to undertake or continue on. If the cyclist was wearing day-glow clothing, then I would say the issue here wasn't one of being seen and was indeed one of unpredictable behaviour. Perhaps this is why the case was dropped?


Road vehicles should not behave like that. Road vehicles stay in the appropriate lane.


If there is any risk, then he should slow down instead of acting unpredictably. This is not a race!


You are wrong. There are two other cars that pass him that take that exit while he is still on the right of the roundabout, and they do so with plenty of room to spare (on both sides).
Can anyone give a Google link to that roundabout?



There is no way I would ride like that: not on that straight, not on that roundabout.

I prefer to be safe than right!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

OK, Robin. There is not a single yes/no answer to your question (other than "it depends"), so don't expect one.

I agree that it would be unreasonable for a cyclist to hold up long queues of traffic, particularly when it is pretty obvious that there is sufficient room to pass, so let's dispense with that one first as it is a red herring. (Actually I already did, but no harm in re-iterating.) Making reference to Highway Code rule 169, doesn't really help because that is addressing a very rare situation (as far as cyclists are concerned); one that I have certainly never seen in relation to a cyclist in over 350,000 miles of driving. (I've often seen it in relation to a tractor, though, or a caravan for that matter.)

In the far more common case of cycling in traffic during the rush hour, the whole exercise relies primarily on negotiation between road users, but conducted within clearly defined rules and conventions, most of which are described in the Highway Code. Most of the time, as a cyclist, I find that this works remarkably well; both the cyclist and the drivers are courteous to one another, the cyclist mostly stays at the left to let the cars pass by, and the car drivers make space for the cyclist when necessary. However, there are places where the cyclist really needs to take control because (a) drivers are often not aware of hazards and issues that the cyclist is aware of, and (b) there is a small but significant proportion of drivers who just don't care about other people's safety and really do take massive risks to save a couple of seconds. The problem for cyclists in relation to (b) is that, until someone does something stupid, they can't tell which drivers fall into that category. The majority of these videos on YouTube show some idiot taking the p155 (to quote an expression from an earlier post), sometimes a cyclist, but more usually a car driver.

So, in those situations where negotiation is difficult, then yes, the cyclist should be the one to make the judgement about what is or isn't safe, because they are the vulnerable road user, they have the most information about the situation, and they are the more experienced party regarding bicycle/car situations in general.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Steve.

OK, I did read it. Your suggested average road speed still suggests a top speed that is not appropriate for the cycle lane. But we will never agree on that.

The police did bring a charge of dangerous driving, but the procurator fiscal didn't pursue it because the police failed to allow the driver to have a lawyer present when he admitted that it was he who was driving the tanker, so the conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence that he was the driver. (To be fair to the police, the Scottish law was changed retrospectively and that is what caused the failure of the case!).

Ah. I just read your latest, and there is no point in going on. dcbwhaley was correct in his earlier post on the futility of discussing cycling in a forum where the underlying paradigm is that "the vast majority of cyclists are lawless".

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

I quite like the point made in passing by Steve about all these videos. If you have a lot of hazardous incidents which you consider worthy of filming and putting online then it's probably YOU who are the problem.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

So the letters state it is not compolsory, but should do where where practicable. Our cyclist didn't do so where practicable. That's to the "letter"?


How do you conclude "unfounded" when it is clearly shown in the clip, before and after the roundabout?


Too much for you to understand, huh?

Once more: you accused me of laying blame for this event on the cyclist due to the cyclists actions: "imply that Magnatom was somehow to blame for the tanker driver's blatant dangerous driving.", when in reality I hadn't made any connection between the two, and then actually corrected someone who did.

If you're not able to reconcile your claim with those two posts, then I will have no choice but to conclude you are indeed trolling.


Have you really not understood a thing I have been trying to say? Go and read my first post in this thread - it's right there!
Malcolm gets it!


Not bother even "reading"? How on earth is that 'rational'?

It does seem like my underlying sentiments was right from the very start (although I never stated what that was). One was or another, it is, and always was, trolling!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

There is another issue, one that only now realise I have been applying without actually appreciating it.

Remaining on the left hand edge of a roundabout indeed increases the possibility of other drivers not noticing you.
However, remaining on the left hand edge of a roundabout increases the possibility of you noticing others who don't notice you.

Given this, I prefer the option where my actions remain predictable, especially where I'm so exposed.


I've just noticed that cyclist didn't come to a halt until about 47.5 seconds into the video, yet he had clearly noticed the errant tanker at a time earlier than 45.7 seconds (when he started shouting). Alarm bells of genuinely experienced cyclists would have been ringing well before then as it is obvious earlier on (44.5) that the tanker was going way too fast to be able to take the first exit safely, meaning the cyclist should have realised both of them would likely have been going for the same exit at the same time, or crossing paths.


Which is reasonable. Going into a roundabout at full speed is very unwise, and smacks of 'going as fast as possible'.
So if he did slow, emergency braking from "13mph and 15mph [ibid]", in about 3 seconds, when going in a straight line, suggests something is quite amiss.

Still, braking late makes for great headlines like "20cm from death".

None of this excuses the tanker driver's bad driving.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I've just seen your edit MrGrumpyCyclist. It is a bit naughty to edit a post when folks have already responded to it, and not telling the respondents about the edit.


Why not? I think we need to explore this as it this is the crux of our disagreement.

I've gone through the video frame by frame with a video editor. There is absolutely no reason why the cyclist should be that far out, even if he were to be going at 30mph (he clearly wasn't). Sure the car door could open at 27s, but the cyclist is way too far out for justification, and before and after that there are clearly no hazards that warrant such a position at all.
There's no way he got that speed back up by the time he regained his position after the roundabout, and again there were no hazards to warrant such a position, yet he immediately does so.

I have explained my position. So why do you feel it is warranted to not use the cycle lanes in this case, regardless of the lack of hazards (as well as going against the letter of the HC) ?

In your view, at what speed does it become appropriate to use these lanes? (apply your argument to this case, so we can get a direct quantitive answer instead of 'it depends')


OK. I was caught out by the misleading message on the video:Why does it remain?


As a cyclist myself, I don't think that!
I have repeatedly shown how DCB's perception, of posts in this forum, are faulty . However, if you wish to take a single user's face-value comment as absolute, then there really is no point with you continuing.


I've just now discovered that "magnaton" said he has been receiving death threats, and it seems he does wear a day-glow jacket.....
The inevitable conclusion would ordinarily be far fetched, but not quite so given the circumstances in this case.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It's all very well suggesting that the cyclist may see dangers that other road users have not, but I do not accept that as a reason to impair their progress, since the cyclist has no idea of the performance and abilities of other road users, and has absolutely no place obstructing them based on their own paradigm. It smacks of arrogance and exudes a bad attitude towards others that is in danger of being reciprocated! Good road users should be aware of potential hazards, and take steps to protect themselves without impacting negatively on others, or risking making any manoeuvre they do attempt more dangerous for all involved.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

That is about as convincing as the old Judge's opinion: "If a lot of women get raped and complain to the police it is probably because they are wearing sexy outfits." Over the last year I have observed and filmed a lot of dogs shitting on the pavement. But I have not shat on the pavement myself even once.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

My comment was based entirely on Peter's post - " given the general lawlessness of cyclists, I find the sight of cyclists wearing headcams to detect the transgressions of motorists hypocritical in the extreme."

[/quote]

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

It is precisely because the cyclist has no idea of the ability of other road users that he has to assume that they are dangerously incompetent and act accordingly. There have been many threads on these forums which stress the need of individual road users to take responsibility for their own safety. That is what blocking overtaking is about. Preventing a potentially life threatening manoeuvre.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Those were not a good parallels.

More relevantly: some women who weren't raped report it to the police. Also, some woman revel in the attention their 'signal's can bring.

Some folks do things purely for the attention it brings. You might have heard of "intentionally provocative actions" by another name: trolling - "YHBT". This temptation (be it with posts or video clips) is one of the major downsides of our wild-west internet. Given the scale of it, this human factor is evidently not one that can be easily dismissed.

In our case, I have cause to conclude the victim is also a protagonist, wantonly inducing bad reactions with the intention of reporting them. Cycling well into carriageways where cycle lanes are available, by default, is highly antagonistic to following traffic. If one is going too fast to use a cycle lane and traffic is wanting to pass, then one should ride slower so that everyone can utilise the road space properly.
The argument "for the sake of a few seconds" is actually more applicable to the one who first used it!




"... forum where the underlying paradigm ..."

One comment of a forum is representative not.

Different people have differing perceptions, so why pick the extreme one? Is that at all fair? Isn't there a bit of a distribution of opinions?




Flip side: it is precisely because the cyclist has no idea of the abilities and attitudes of other road users that he has to act accordingly by: acting predictably, giving a wide berth when safely practicable, and not causing unnecessary obstruction.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign