Safe Speed Forums

Well if they have been murdered we are unlikely to know about it, not heard of any train /air disasters, and no marriages that I am aware of so I guess CSt will has you riveted then if that is what we are competing with then! Are you posting during the adverts by any chance ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

If you must filter on the left, then yes, very slowly.

I do see cyclists (and motorcyclists) filtering down the left side of traffic at high speeds and wince.

So, you disagree with the rationale that I have explained. That is your prerogative. Your point about a "moving reference" is not sensible. "The traffic flow" clearly refers to the locus on which the traffic moves. Certainly that will change over time as circumstances change (such as a parked car moving) but it is relatively stable over short time periods.


I already told you. You are just choosing to ignore what I said. It is extremely useful to try to understand the congitive processes of the motor driver with whom you are sharing the road. Part of that understanding it is the recognition that limitations in the processing capability of the human brain result in a need to focus attention in one particular area. It is possible for people to learn to be perceptive across a wider area, but most motor drivers do not have this skill.


Because it isn't, and I already told you some of the reasons why that is so.


Then you really aren't paying attention. Bikeability is a huge national training scheme for cyclists young and old. Your lack of awareeness of this indicates that you really are arguing from a position of ignorance.


There is some, including one very well conducted study that does indeed show that drivers tend to pass closer to cyclists if they ride further out. However, they do point out that this does not mean it is safer to ride further in due to a load of other factors. (If you want more, then read the paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... pe=a#secx6
(Don't bother to comment until you have actually read the paper that is referenced.)
However, you are right to say that there needs to be more research. Unfortunately, the available funding for research into cycling safety is miniscule compared to research into how to make cars go faster.


Personal experience for one thing, particularly in the case of the ubiquitous "left hook". But also the accounts of many other cyclists, including ones that provide video evidence.


You really just said that: '"failed to see" is not a "sorry mate I didn't see you"'. Perhaps you were implying that motorists who say that are mostly just lying?


Couldn't agree more but, as I already said, in the meantime, whilst all this wonderful re-education is going on, we have to use the roads as they are now, with the drivers as they are now.


Again, I agree. However, what must not be supported is that cyclists drive in a way that assumes this problem is solved when currently it isn't. You seem to be proposing that cyclists should sacrifice their lives to demonstrate that something needs to be done about driver behaviour; that is just stupid.


(Sorry, didn't catch the last bit there.) Yes, wouldn't it be lovely!


I was there, and I am perfectly able to recognise an arrogant tosser when I see one. However, even if he was embarrassed, it doesn't excuse his attitude.


What an incredibly stupid comment! This guy took a massive risk with my life and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it (other than perhaps dive off my bike onto the pavement).


See earlier replies. We have to live in the here-and-now. Campaigning for change is one thing, and very worthwhile; surviving today is another.


Ah, I see you are deliberately being obtuse and then removing the context to hide the fact. (I realize that it was partly my fault for allowing you the opening. I keep forgetting that the objective in this forum is to "win" by twisting meanings and diverting the discussion down blind alleys, rather than to achieve any kind of enlightenment.) I have put the context back in and highlighted to make it more obvious.
Yes, it is written into French law. In fact it is written into law in all but 5 European countries; GB being one of those five.


No, it doesn't.


I'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.


The one that is referred to in the very first sentence of your message.


Indeed. (Motorists obeying speed limits might be a good start.)

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

Bloke pulled out on me a while back on a roundabout, I was very ready for him to do it as I'd been watching his observation techniques revolving around traffic coming from his right (i.e. nada, zilch, zip).

I remonstrated, he said "Sorry mate, I didn't see you", I said "No, you weren't looking were you", he smiled and said "You're right, I wasn't looking", I thanked him for his honesty.

True of course, but it has been interesting and enlightening to engage in a much longer and more in-depth discourse on this forum than is possible at the roadside. My initial hypothesis, that drivers who fail to act courteously and safely around cyclists, have no rationale whatsoever for their behaviour, has been demonstrated to be correct - thank you RobinXe for the insight.

Claire - by all means continue to cower in the gutter as you ride your bike - that's your choice, but please don't suggest it represents good practice. It doesn't exactly lend credibility to your "safespeed" campaign anyway!

[quote = "SafeSpeedv2"]The HC showing a half meter from the side means that cyclists are encroaching into the 'main stream' of traffic flow [/quote]

That rather neatly encapsulates the anti-cyclist feeling which permeates these forums. Dividing traffic into "main" and "cyclists" suggests that cyclists are some kind of irrelevance who should acknowledge their inferiority to "proper traffic". Cyclists are part of the traffic. Full stop


Why indeed. But the fact is that the kerbside position is rarely safe and sensible.


There is nothing new in the idea of using high side riding to stay in command of your cycling environment. I joined Drighlington Bicycling Club fifty years ago as a young teenager and was taught that concept by older riders, many of whom had been cycling in the 'thirties.

Thinks carefully... Presses submit button

_________________
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

If the best in the way of rational reasoned debate you can manage is barbs aimed at individuals, then please do substantiate this by pointing out where in this thread I have given any indication that I am ever discourteous to cyclists, or any other road users. You seemingly fail to realise that the very people you are branding "anti-cyclist" are cyclists!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Well, I'm a car driver and I regularly get branded anti car driver on here!

Well, we have people who are both drivers and cyclists. Presumably when using either mode of transport there are occasions when other road users cause you grief. Why do you feel the need to film these incidents on a camera if you are cycling but do not bother while in the car? Is there some psychological reason why being in a car makes you more forgiving and tolerant of others errors?

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

It is quite possible to be a cyclist and still to subscribe to the view that cyclists are less important road users than motorists

_________________
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

Burgeoning market place:

http://www.incarcamerasystems.co.uk/?gc ... 4QodxAJzbg

But then maybe that cyclists have a very low "at fault" rate is what motivates them to record their journeys, or posterity?

I dunno, I don't do it.

Admirably demonstrated on this thread!

No. There is the very pragmatic reason that it would take a gross error by another road user t do me serious damage when I am in a car whereas a quite minor error can kill a cyclist.

_________________
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

Yes. A massive difference in the level of risk. I value my life a lot more than my paintwork.

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

So what is the purpose of filming these errors? Why does feeling at risk make you want to film others.

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

Maybe it's the differing amount of crash protection?

Are all car drivers forgiving and tolerant of others' errors?

I never said that they were but very very few feel the need to fit in car cameras. I repeat, what is the purpose of filming other road users' errors?

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

Well, I think we've already gone over much of this ground, but here's the list of motivations:

• Learning - I have found it very useful to look back at incidents and see whether I can learn from them. I have also found it very useful to look at other people's incidents and learn from them. I have also found it useful to get feedback on my own video clips from other experienced cyclists and learn from them. (Actually, it turns out that this has been by far the most valuable aspect.)
  
• Retribution - yes, it feels good to be able to name and shame drivers who do bad things to me. (And to show some idiotic things cyclists do as well.)
  
• Evidence - the way our laws work makes it very difficult to claim redress if needed. I have never had to do that, thank goodness, but it would help if needed. (See the lawyer's comments in the One Show clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrO9c91SPEI ). (This was my original reason for getting a camera.)
  
• Improving the situation - (admittedly in a very small way) I have an ongoing case of a lorry driver who is being dealt with by his company on the basis of the video evidence I have provided of his absolutely appalling driving. I understand he will be required to undergo further training in order to keep his job.
  
• Behaviour modification - there are people who claim that the presence of a video camera has the effect of improving the behaviour of drivers. I don't really know whether this is true, but it seems plausible.

There may be others, but these are the ones that come immediately to mind. (It was useful that you made me reflect on this, by the way.)

[Edited to add the last bullet point.]

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

Are you really saying you can't or won’t cycle a foot or less from the curb?

I can tell you it's the norm where I live unless, as discussed, the PP is needed. I don't think it's about SS institutionally being anti cycling, you just seem to want everyone to simply agree with you and if everyone on SS doesn't you regard that as some sort of proof that it is also an anti-cycling campaign.

How can a campaign developed from a concern over speed cameras and enforcement attract anti-cyclists as some kind of naturally occurring by-product? That doesn't make sense even if I wear my crazy hat Dave.

And no, cyclists are not inferior but they are vulnerable. And yes, they are part of the traffic but like I said in my analogy of motorway vehicles, each vehicle quite rightly has its own place based on type and its own abilities. If I wanted to do 50mph I wouldn't do it in lane three of the M5. Maybe HGV drivers should be up in arms because they are not allowed to use a PP in L3.

_________________
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.