Do you 'engage' with cyclists?

[JagXJR]

walm said:

Roll your eyes all you like but when someone passes a cyclist and has to honk at them because it was "a little tight" and if they fell off you would hit them - THAT IS NOT A LEGAL OVERTAKE.
It is ill-thought-out.
For the last time this is the MOST IMPORTANT RULE (163) in this situation.
There is even a picture to help the hard of thinking.

YOU DID NOT LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM.
THIS WAS BAD DANGEROUS DRIVING.
If a cyclist had fallen you would quite rightly be going to jail.



You can go on about how we weren't there but if you left this much room - THERE WAS NO NEED TO HONK.
OR you didn't leave enough room.
You can't have it both ways.

Would you have done what you did on your driving test?
Would you have done what you did in front of a police car?
Would you have done what you did on the advanced driving test you never took?

It is not defensive driving.
It was aggressive and dangerous.

What is worse is that rather than try to learn from your mistakes and think twice about endangering vulnerable road users you come on not one but TWO threads to bh about cyclist.
Very very poor behaviour all round.

Of course they should have shoulder checked (not sure what difference it would have made, but still) and they should not have gestured at you.
BUT YOU ENDANGERED THEIR LIVES.

Which behaviour is worse.

Honestly you are a great example of the absolute idiocy and arrogance that causes so much unnecessary danger every day on our roads.

Since I have already posted this article up, why did you feel the need to Well perhaps you or some others might benefit.

My opinion of a little tight and other peoples vary greatly. As already posted. Rehashing this is going nowhere.

Yes there was a need to sound my horn. In a legally manner for the only purpose it is allowed. Others safety.

To answer your questions -

1 No. It is not a test route.

2 Yes.

3 Yes.

there was no mistake (beyond posting it on here thinking people knew and accepted the rules of the road)

Had I been the lead cyclist I would have proceeded too, but you can bet your cycle contact point I would have looked.

Anyone who thinks it is ok to change course without looking is an idiot!

Seems this is your redeeming feature - "Of course they should have shoulder checked (not sure what difference it would have made, but still) and they should not have gestured at you."

But then you spoilt it with this claptrap - "BUT YOU ENDANGERED THEIR LIVES." Typical cyclist holier than though attitude.

And then you wonder why motorist think so little of cyclists???

Edited for spelling

[Mr Will]

Finlandia said:

According to Folksam in Sweden: Each year, about 2,000 cyclists are injured, as expected, the most dangerous injury is a head injury. Statistics from real accidents shows in black and white that bicycle helmets are of utmost importance. Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet.

http://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken...

Each year thousands of pedestrians suffer head injuries. Per mile travelled they are actually more at risk than cyclists. The question shouldn't be why do you wear a cycle helmet. It should be why do you take it off when you get off your bike?

[JagXJR]

walm said:

How exactly did that work?

Did the horn magically widen the road??
Did it make your Jag thinner?
Did it transport you back behind the cyclists where you should have been?

No it did'nt need to.
No it did'nt need to
No it did'nt need to

Will it make you sound more intelligent as the need is there, also no sadly

[JagXJR]

WinstonWolf said:

You sounded the horn to make it safe

Seriously?

Why else do you sound the horn than to alert others to your presence? Go on I'm curious?

[JagXJR]

WinstonWolf said:

"I don't make things up" Err, you just made the race thing up...

No I didn't, I said I deliberately left it out.

Trolling?

[JagXJR]

walm said:

These are not comments that refer to a safe overtake.
These are not comments consistent with rule 163.
These are not comments that adhere to the picture I posted.

JagXJR said:

In this case there was enough space to overtake, unless someone did something stupid.

JagXJR said:

it was a bit tight

JagXJR said:

The margin for error was less than I like. I like a lot of margin, what happens if one of them falls off in front of me?

I think your use of the horn was sensible given the idiotic situation you had put yourself in.
The overtake is the issue.
It was ill-thought-out.
You refusing to consider that just perhaps you unnecessarily endangered some very vulnerable road users is just sad.

Rubish. As already posted.

[WinstonWolf]

JagXJR said:

WinstonWolf said:

You sounded the horn to make it safe

Seriously?

Why else do you sound the horn than to alert others to your presence? Go on I'm curious?

You said "to make it safe"

Overtaking an overtaking vehicle is inherently unsafe, sounding your horn does NOT make it safe.

[Mr Will]

JagXJR said:

...don't care what anyone thinks on the incident anymore TBH. Got better things to do.

Cyclist should ride legally within the law. End off.

Until:

JagXJR said:

<More guff about how his dodgy overtake wasn't really dodgy and he knows more about driving AND cycling than everyone else on here put together>

Thought you said you were done with this?

You've still not explained what you expected the cyclists to do when you came charging past them in to a narrowing gap. I guess that means you think they should have stopped and given way to the mighty Jaguar who pays far more road tax than they do.

[WinstonWolf]

Mr Will said:

JagXJR said:

...don't care what anyone thinks on the incident anymore TBH. Got better things to do.

Cyclist should ride legally within the law. End off.

Until:

JagXJR said:

<More guff about how his dodgy overtake wasn't really dodgy and he knows more about driving AND cycling than everyone else on here put together>

Thought you said you were done with this?

You've still not explained what you expected the cyclists to do when you came charging past them in to a narrowing gap. I guess that means you think they should have stopped and given way to the mighty Jaguar who pays far more road tax than they do.

Whatever you do don't mention that you've got a beard...

[JagXJR]

Saddle bum said:

Sorry but: "A cycle race on a public road is prohibited by section 31(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 unless the race is authorised by or under regulations under that section."

How do you think part of the TdF was held in Yorkshire last year?

OMG the pedants are out in force. Yes under special circumstances it is allowed. As is the RAC rally (or whatever they call it these days).

thank you for stating the bleeding obvious

[IroningMan]

Johnnytheboy said:

There used to be a pic trotted out about when it was ok not to pass a cyclist, featuring a lady in very tight shorts. Livened up many an angry cyclist thread.

I have it, but I'm not sharing it with any non-cyclists.

[Saddle bum]

JagXJR said:

Saddle bum said:

Sorry but: "A cycle race on a public road is prohibited by section 31(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 unless the race is authorised by or under regulations under that section."

How do you think part of the TdF was held in Yorkshire last year?

OMG the pedants are out in force. Yes under special circumstances it is allowed. As is the RAC rally (or whatever they call it these days).

thank you for stating the bleeding obvious

That's OK. You stated cycle racing was not allowed on public roads - wrong. It is a common occurrence all over the country, sanctioned by law. Just to make it safer, Cycle Race Marshals are to be given powers to stop traffic - in the interests of participant safety, of course, not to wind up Tommy Tintop in his Saxo.

[Saddle bum]

IroningMan said:

Johnnytheboy said:

There used to be a pic trotted out about when it was ok not to pass a cyclist, featuring a lady in very tight shorts. Livened up many an angry cyclist thread.

I have it, but I'm not sharing it with any non-cyclists.

[JagXJR]

Mr Will said:

JagXJR said:

...don't care what anyone thinks on the incident anymore TBH. Got better things to do.

Cyclist should ride legally within the law. End off.

Until:

JagXJR said:

<More guff about how his dodgy overtake wasn't really dodgy and he knows more about driving AND cycling than everyone else on here put together>

Thought you said you were done with this?

You've still not explained what you expected the cyclists to do when you came charging past them in to a narrowing gap. I guess that means you think they should have stopped and given way to the mighty Jaguar who pays far more road tax than they do.

And yet people are still quoting me prompting a response, despite knowing that I consider I am done discussing the matter.

Sounds like trolling to me.

But you are right in one respect, I am done with this.

You think what you like, I don't care. I was there and fully able to judge, you weren't.

And I sill think many cyclists are muppets, nothing on this thread has changed my mind.

Hope you all have a good day and leave those funny smelling cigarettes alone. Not good for you

[walm]

JagXJR said:

I was there and fully able to judge, you weren't.

Why not post a google map link?
Then we might have a sense of whether there was plenty of room for parked car + cyclist + Jag.

Fair enough if you want to leave it.
I feel like we got the full half hour.

[heebeegeetee]

Mr Will said:

Finlandia said:

According to Folksam in Sweden: Each year, about 2,000 cyclists are injured, as expected, the most dangerous injury is a head injury. Statistics from real accidents shows in black and white that bicycle helmets are of utmost importance. Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet.

http://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken...

Each year thousands of pedestrians suffer head injuries. Per mile travelled they are actually more at risk than cyclists. The question shouldn't be why do you wear a cycle helmet. It should be why do you take it off when you get off your bike?

The 2 out of 3 comment can be applied to everybody. Head injuries are common with up to a million people each year visiting A & E due to them. As Mr Will says, why would you take your helmet off after doing some normal utility cycling, 'cos your risk hasn't changed.

[walm]

I wear mine about the house. And usually swap to the full-face SNELL motorcycle one for the stairs.
The leathers have also prevented many a potentially sore friction burn on the carpet.
Doesn't everyone do this?

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Will said:

Finlandia said:

According to Folksam in Sweden: Each year, about 2,000 cyclists are injured, as expected, the most dangerous injury is a head injury. Statistics from real accidents shows in black and white that bicycle helmets are of utmost importance. Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet.

http://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken...

Each year thousands of pedestrians suffer head injuries. Per mile travelled they are actually more at risk than cyclists. The question shouldn't be why do you wear a cycle helmet. It should be why do you take it off when you get off your bike?

The 2 out of 3 comment can be applied to everybody. Head injuries are common with up to a million people each year visiting A & E due to them. As Mr Will says, why would you take your helmet off after doing some normal utility cycling, 'cos your risk hasn't changed.

O/T
Some time ago a kid died in kindergarten, he had been cycling and had a helmet on, then went climbing in some play thing and got his helmet suck and hanged himself.

Wearing a helmet saves you from head injuries though, that is a fact.

Edited by Finlandia on Wednesday 4th March 11:09

[IroningMan]

walm said:

The leathers have also prevented many a potentially sore friction burn on the carpet.

Thanks for sharing. Did the stains come out?

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

O/T
Some time ago a kid died in kindergarten, he had been cycling and had a helmet on, then went climbing in some play thing and got his helmet suck and hanged himself.

In Scandinavia about 6 children died after being asphyxiated by their helmet straps. It left a health professional to say " we simply don't know if helmets have saved any lives but we do know they have cost lives".

I think every authority everywhere that has introduced any legislation re helmets has indeed been able to show a reduction in head injuries. This has been achieved because the helmet law has led to a reduction in cyclists, meaning people have climbed back into their cars instead. I think everywhere the reduction in cyclist numbers has been greater than the reduction in head injuries, meaning that the accident rate for those who continued to cycle actually went up.

ETA: A doctor in Sweden lamented, with regard to strangulations in that country and its child helmet law, "We know we have killed, but we can't show we have saved anyone". (Sweden, 1)

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html#10213

Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 4th March 12:39