Safe Speed Forums

Thank you; it seems you may be a courteous motorist. There are some others who think it is, however, and that is one of the problems I am concerned about.


No, you don't need to say anything, but you accused my of having flawed logic and that was my response. That's fine.


Splitting hairs.


I don't think I've accused anyone of being hypocritical. If you can find an instance where I have then apologies for that.

Now, I have spent far too much time on this. It may be that some of your questions above are pertinent to the topic of this thread, but most of them aren't and I just don't have time to go through them all. I've made the points I want to, and I've listened to yours. Let's call it a day.

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

The difference between "that doesn't mean" and "Yes, it does" is hardly "Splitting hairs".

Your accusation was flawed; end!

It wouldn't be the first time: "most extreme case of the attitude already betrayed by Steve".

You have to understand that much of what we do is to dispel myths about other various claims (speed camera effectiveness) - it's what we do, and I think we do it well


Oops! I was wrong, it is I who owes you the apologies. You indeed did not make such an accusation.

However, you are not answering questions posed to you, even though you made a point of one of your latter questions not being directly answered, so part of my statement remains valid.


They're all pertinent to the issues we have been discussing. All are in response to claims and statements you have made, prompting you to justify them - what else should I do?

It is clear we cannot continue these debates unless you address my questions posed to you.
If you find "time" to continue posting in these forums without addressing the questions, then I will justifiably make the appropriate noises.
If not, then I wish you safe and happy cycling, PP or otherwise, but please - don't take the p155.

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

Hm, had a bit of a think about what you had to say about Magnatom's path through the roundabout and thought: "what if I'm wrong?". So I checked what the real authorities on the subject had to say in Cyclecraft; remember, the recommended book for Bikeability, the National Cycle Training Standard. The answer is (p135 in the 4th edition):


Well someone did pass him on the left later, but I guess he can be excused for allowing that to happen given what had just occurred. There is an impression that he may have drifted a little to the left on the entry to the roundabout, but that is probably accounted for by the lean of the bike putting the camera to the left of the wheels, so it seems his technique was pretty much textbook there.

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

I'd just like to quickly say something GC which you may not know about what I know about some Safe Speed people...

This is not a character assassination and there are people here who are cyclists and very passionate about cycling to the core. I’m one of them!

I am glad you are here and I sincerely hope you stay and I appreciate how hard it is to come into a forum ‘cold’.

As I said earlier, I don't think anyone has given you an especially hard time and I certainly know what it feels like to enter a new forum and get flamed.

This has not happened here and think all that has happened is 'a full and frank exchange of words' as they say in politics.

It's always difficult to get the wrong meaning on a forum where all we have is the written word and the occasional smiley; should people know, understand and use them when they are most needed.

I'm very glad you came back and if I may say so, I still don't get this PP thing which I would like explaining TBH because I took it to mean, and it came across as, I'm going to dominate the road at MY pace and F k you drivers! When I have gotten up to 25+ mph I still feel it is the right and safe thing to stay nearer the curb than nearer the most potentially lethal element in my immediate environment - namely the traffic!

I’m cycling into work tomorrow BTW, now that we are coming out of winter, a round trip of nine miles...

_________________
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.

No, it's about making sure somebody doesn't pass you if you feel it would be silly for them to do so,

In the past you said you've taken to holding you handlebars differently when driving through a narrow part of town as you often get knocked. This tells me your inviting the driver to pass you when there's not enough room, don't, ride in the middle of the lane so they can't pass.

Obviously only do this in the right circumstance, i.e when riding in primary warrrants it.

So wrong I can't quite decide where to begin!

Yeesh! I reject that. If someone can and wants to pass, and I can allow it to happen safely, then I will let it happen.
Granted I could be alone in this, but I don't feel it right to assert such dominance when fleshbags are involved, and there are really bad drivers around - like our tanker driver.


What was that about saving a few seconds?


Yes, the roundabout was plenty big enough for him and other vehicles.
Someone also safely passed him on the right too, on the exit.
In total, 3 cars safely passed him when he was on or exiting the roundabout. It does occur to me that the Cyclecraft guide perhaps shouldn't be applied in this case.


Lean of the bike? Care to remind us how slow you thought he was going? 13-15mph? How much of a lean do you expect from that speed?
Be warned: I can do maths and physics!

Is leaning recommended in Cyclecraft?

Compared to his position on the straight carriageway, the position of the cyclist shows he clearly cut the corner at the entrance - saving time?


Well, he didn't react as quickly as he should have (3 seconds from 13-15 to 0); but in essence I agree did largely take the recommended route, but was it applicable to that roundabout?

Regardless, something still failed him.

The cyclist either: saw it late (almost too late), or tried to assume the dominant primary position in the hope that the tanker driver would yield? (very nearly a grave mistake)

I'll remain with my current craft: CO.A.S.T. Had the cyclist applied that, he wouldn't have been "20cm from death".

What does your guide say about remaining out of cycle lanes?

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

Well, given the lack of substance of your other posts, despite direct prompts (such as 1, 2), I'm not surprised.

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

Hi weepej and it's nice to have you back. I feel, have felt, you left us for good and I would hate that to happen because I do not, and have not, dissagreed with you on everything - far from.

But you start with being naughty.



"Often"

I don't even need to look back at my posts to know that is such an untruth you make me want to screem! Next....

Yes you're right. I did, and I still do, hold the handlebars differently after that incident on my right hand with my thumb over the top


BTW. Cyclists ride not drive

_________________
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.

Steve, can't stop now, but I'll leave you to argue that one out with the Bikeability people. You can find them here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/

Big Tone, I think you may be putting yourself in more danger than necessary. It's your choice, of course, but personally I prefer to take the advice of the various respected authorities I have read. Have a look at the link I posted earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmWoUtxFG8M which illustrates graphically the folly of not using primary position. This little animation is very telling also: http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/ani ... e-control/ as it shows very well the reasons for getting away from the kerb. (Incidentally, this one is American, so you need to exchange left and right, but the principles are all the same.)

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

Ride primary position when necessary to avoid this

So long as you argue with http://www.direct.gov.uk (HC rule 63) about use of cycle lanes


I have seen this before, I laughed when I saw it then. This time I didn't as it is clear that people take it seriously. With tanker drivers like that.......

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

I don't slavishly follow the opinions of "respected authorities", I generally make up my own mind (like most people do). For example, I disagree with a lot of what the IAM say about driving.

The point is that so called "respected authorities" are often hopelessly wrong when their views are looked at with hindsight.

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

Primary position means what exactly and where's the proof/evidence that this is safer? (Sorry GC, the answer may be in your links but I haven't got there yet).

I hope this is not yet another speed kills argument, where a cyclist riding at 20 mph in the middle of the road bogging everyone else down makes for a safer better society. Does this PP apply up hill when I'm cycling up my local 'grind' at 3mph for half a mile in a out of interest?

They could all get by me if I'm 12" from the curb with 12" between them and my handlebar but you know what, I'm going stay six feet away from the curb for the next 10 minutes doing 3mph because I deem it to be safer for them and me.

This is not Bull S**t but a real situation I have been in many times. If I used PP up Rose Hill, Bromsgrove, West Midlands at 3 to 5 mph I would Pi55 so many drivers off I can't begin to tell..

BTW Weepej, before or if you quote yourself saying "when needed", in answer to that have a look at Grumpy Cyclist's links and ask yourself was that needed.

_________________
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.

Troll

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

That's it?

I actually gave a serious reason for rejecting it, and you simply completely dismiss it?

Let me get this right: with tanker drivers like the one that cut up magnatom, you are happy to not even consider using any cycle lane? Seriously?

Is this another of your errors?

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

The reasons you are a troll are that you persisted in pushing a line when it had already been dispensed with (HC rule 63 clearly states that the use of cycle lanes is optional, so there is no need for me to argue with it), and you made disparaging remarks about a pretty useful information source without any reasoned argument (the tanker incident was nothing to do with primary or secondary position in the road). You, sir are a troll, by your own definition.

Oh, and you have compounded all that by implying that I am "happy to not even consider using any cycle lane", which I have never once said. You are a troll!

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

It looks like you have errored again. Let me explain:


No it hadn't been dispensed with. You are, again, wrong!
HC 63 also stated that it should be used "where practicable" as opposed 'do what you want and to hell with other road users'. Yes it is not compulsory but it doesn't mean you can wantonly obstruct traffic. This is something you have never acknowledged.

You see, this is why I said to you: "It is clear we cannot continue these debates unless you address my questions posed to you." which were:

You said you didn't have time to address these, yet you seem to have found a decent amount of time for the things you are posting.


I wasn't talking about any roundabout incident, I wrongly assumed you would make that link given we weren't talking about roundabouts. Nevermind!

To clarify: bad tanker driver, straight carriageway, approaching from behind cyclist, no warning to cyclist who is quite unreasonably remaining out of the cycle lane in the carriageway; splat! Now do you understand my concern?
Do you really want to make it even more tricky for those drivers 'towing trailers'?


But that's what the source you referenced recommends (be it indirectly). Where do you think a cycle lane would end for their example, and where would they have the biker travel?
Do you disagree with the recommendation given in the source you cited, to always stay out way more than 2 feet from the curb (where cycle lanes, had they existed, have ended)?

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

Well MrArgumentativeCyclist, it seems you came here to argue about arguing, rather than to debate useful points, isn't this a criticism you levelled at others earlier?

To dcb and weepie, a very similar question to the one mgc evaded earlier; are you saying that it is a cyclist's place to decide what manoeuvres are safe for other road users to undertake, and to use their own bodies and machines to try to block those which they deem unsafe?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Since you have, as usual, decided to nit-pick details rather than address the real issue I will throw (or throe ) in my two pennorth. You are misquoting HC63 in an attempt to bolster your failing argument.

HC63 does not say that you should use a cycle lane when practicable. It says When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. A very different thing. It is not recommending that you use the lane but is saying that, if you do choose to use the lane, you should remain within it rather than swapping in and out. The where "practicable" refers to the fact that cycle lanes are frequently obstructed by parked vehicles or are unsafe because the detritus of a road incident has been swept onto them

HC63 is quite unambiguous that the use of cycle lanes is a matter of choice and is quite clear, by the use of the word can rather than will in the final sentence, that they are not always the safest choice.

_________________
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