Safe Speed Forums

Not at all. All I was doing is explaining how keeping left is not necessarily timid or cowering; I used my own experience merely as proof of logic. If I was that worried I wouldn't cycle at all! So no, I never read your comment as being aimed at me.

Even with that clarified, it is obvious that your language still betrays you.


You have acted immediately following an extreme and rare event (I'm assuming you've been cycling for a long time, at least months); you've drawn a conclusion based on a very short measurement time-frame, one nowhere near enough to expect the event (or anything like it) that caused you to act.


Making " a big assumption without any evidence to back it up."

</irony>


See the highlight: I said "the" not "your". My question remains.


So you believe the BMW would have tracked your position and encroached into the cycle lane?


Wrong! Go back and re-read, it is right there!


Two obvious problems with that:
1) had you adopted PP and the BMW been slightly earlier in that scenario, he would have applied the same clearance and risked left-hooking you.
2) he could have been a psychopath (do you know?), so surely it is better to be right out of their way?
Your solution still doesn't work.


I seemingly have the advantage of seeing your line in the video, as well as measuring the time before you reached the grate after the BMW passed. Ho hum!


I am a cyclist and a driver - just like you?
I hope your forum behaviour is never mirrored on the road.


I hope they do before you encounter a psychopath, or someone who inadvertently left-hooks you as I described, or someone wanting to make a point.

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

Don't read between the lines. You are chasing imaginary shadows.


You haven't answered the question. What, specifically, is the conclusion to which you refer?


No. I've already given you umpteen authoritative references on this.


Hm, if it isn't a straw-man, then can you reference where this claim has been made? As I don't know the basis for the claim, I really can't comment.

Incidentally, you didn't provide a quantifier for the assertion that you asked me to comment on. Does this assertion refer to all cycle lanes in all circumstances, or just some cycle lanes in some circumstances, or some other permutation of these?


I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't.


Apologies, you're right. It was there in the next part of that paragraph. However, my response remains the same:


1) He would not have been able to get into a position to left hook with the van there. In any case, he wasn't turning left so I don't see the relevance of the "left hook".
2) Extremely unlikely.


Firstly, you can't see my line as you can't see my wheels; please tell me exactly what calculations you have done to infer my line from what you see. Secondly, the fact that there was a second before I would have hit the drain is irrelevant; in fact that's damn close (about one turn of the pedal crank on my bike!)


On the road I don't meet so many annoying barrack-room lawyers with flawed logic who feel they have the right to "cross-examine" me.


The first comment there is just silly.
Taking primary position most often prevents left-hooks and does not cause them. There are some places where I have been left hooked several times until I started to take primary position at those points, since when it has never happened again. Evidence!

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

I've not forgotten about this thread, but I'm too busy right now to respond properly.


Posting to vent my disgust at something that occurred literally 10 minutes ago:

Returning from my lunchtime walk, a cyclist with a helmet mounted camera passed me (first time I have seen this with my own eyes), him travelling on a traffic light controlled roundabout (no ASL on roundabouts).
There was a short queue ahead (for the traffic light). He filtered up the left side of to the head of the queue: one of those trucks with an open cab (dunno what they're called). He placed his hand on the vehicle to keep himself steady while waiting (how rude). Then on the green, proceeded to undertake the left turning truck.

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

That particular cyclist will only get away with that for so long. That's a recipe for disaster. I'm sure there's more than one instance when a cyclist has been undetaking a truck, only to be crushed under the wheels. Of course, the truck driver will be blamed.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

You're right, that is incredibly stupid. Research published last year found that a quarter of the 247 cyclist deaths in London between 1992 and 2006 involved the cyclist being crushed by a left-turning freight vehicle. Apparently, Transport for London have have big poster campaigns specifically to educate cyclists about not going up the inside of HGVs. Unfortunately, the rest of the country isn't so switched on about all this. So there does seem to be at least one benefit to having a (alleged) buffoon as your Mayor.


You really ought to provide evidence to support such an inflammatory comment, though.

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