A clown takes a pratfall
Discussion
Mave said:
Ghibli said:
I guess we can both agree that it wasn't a close overtake then ? Bearing in mind the road is wide enough for a cyclist and a car. Or are you saying the motorist wasn't close enough to the parked cars on the right.
Nope, can't agree to that. I've referred to it a number of times as a close pass, so I think my opinion should be fairly clear.What's not clear is why you won't explicity answer the question of what observable behaviour you think makes the cyclist a selfish t
t before the overtake.Did the driver take or expect more than half the road or the cyclist ?
It's all about being aware of situations and making provisions for these events when on the road.
St John Smythe said:
Mave said:
St John Smythe said:
Maeve doesn't know. She's just guessing but as already pointed out by a few posters, it's difficult to judge the gap due to how the camera is mounted on the bike.
It's difficult to judge in absolute terms to a few cm. It's not difficult to judge that it's less than an acceptable distance especially when there's a known linear dimension to scale off.
Very odd.
Ghibli said:
Mave said:
Ghibli said:
I guess we can both agree that it wasn't a close overtake then ? Bearing in mind the road is wide enough for a cyclist and a car. Or are you saying the motorist wasn't close enough to the parked cars on the right.
Nope, can't agree to that. I've referred to it a number of times as a close pass, so I think my opinion should be fairly clear.What's not clear is why you won't explicity answer the question of what observable behaviour you think makes the cyclist a selfish t
t before the overtake.Did the driver take or expect more than half the road or the cyclist ?
It's all about being aware of situations and making provisions for these events when on the road.
t simply because he didn't move further to the left?Mave said:
I feel like Jeremy paxman. So let's try an even more direct question. Do you think the cyclist is a selfish tt simply because he didn't move further to the left?
If this guy is an experienced cyclist and has ridden this road before ? He should know that a car and a cyclist can fit down there.t simply because he didn't move further to the left?I don't see that he should have more than half the space available stopping the car from overtaking when there is no need to.
Do you think you could cycle down there and have a car overtake you ? I certainly could and I would make sure there was enough room for the couple of seconds of overtake.
yonex said:
Watched the video, saw a cyclist and driver get into it over not much. This particular cyclist is a bit daft for picking a fight he can't deal with, tbh I was playing Benny Hill music in my head whilst watching it. I love it how brave the cyclist is after the event, personally, I'd be pretty embarrassed.
Two utter bottom feeders.
Yonex, I've disagreed with you on other topics involving the C word but on this your are spot on!Two utter bottom feeders.
As for others on here, the usual vocal, judgemental, guessing, all round baiters.....well, if you want to bang on and on about passing distance, what's safe and what's not, whats expected and what's actually done, then check out ALL of this chaps videos, all your opinions count for nothing as this chaps only aim is to get hits, the rules count for nish and if I was backing him I would be embarrassed.
All that counts is that he has the slightest chance to make a massive issue out of something that any normal person would either
A: suck it up, swear to themselves and carry on, although wrong, these days confrontation for the slightest thing can have dire consequences way beyond what the situation merits.
B: take down the plate and report it with the camera evidence if you really thought it was dangerous
This chap even chased after a HGV into its yard, now i can't help but wonder if he wasn't cycling up and down that road waiting for a close pass frommthe right vehicle. Otherwise it was a very lucky chance that the only truck to do it to him that day ( which as a HGV driver taking into account his "standards" I find hard to believe! ) happened to be based just round the corner so he could chase it.
Finally, before the next 25 pages of school leavers and loners have a go, it's strange that none of the posters defending this chap have much to say about him chasing the car for a confrontation or indeed the chasing itself. As usual its all about the equations and laws for a close pass from a motorist, all about what various posters honestly really really do in real life so they can be right on the Internet, not about real life, not about the issues of these cameras and not about this idiot trying to confront all comers. I am sure karma will do its job, who knows, maybe it has but this coward hasn't posted those videos?..............
Yonex, that Benny Hill thing is pure class...
Oh and when it gets to the point where you have to post diagrams of a car and it's door sizes to make sure you're right, that's almost as funny......or tragically lonely, not sure.........
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 5th August 20:28
Ghibli said:
Mave said:
I feel like Jeremy paxman. So let's try an even more direct question. Do you think the cyclist is a selfish tt simply because he didn't move further to the left?
If this guy is an experienced cyclist and has ridden this road before ? He should know that a car and a cyclist can fit down there.t simply because he didn't move further to the left?I don't see that he should have more than half the space available stopping the car from overtaking when there is no need to.
Do you think you could cycle down there and have a car overtake you ? I certainly could and I would make sure there was enough room for the couple of seconds of overtake.
nurseholliday said:
Stuff the dissection and enjoy this article
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-brief-overanalysi...
At least 75% as funny as the fat guy hitting the deck
Just catching up and reading between the pointless debates in this thread. This was particularly funny, thanks for posting that! http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-brief-overanalysi...
At least 75% as funny as the fat guy hitting the deck
NorfolkInClue1 said:
Finally, before the next 25 pages of school leavers and loners have a go, it's strange that none of the posters defending this chap have much to say about him chasing the car for a confrontation or indeed the chasing itself.
That's probably because pretty much everyone has condemned his behaviour post overtake. There's nothing more to debate because everyone is in agreement.What's pretty disappointing on a forum for driving enthusiasts is the number of people who seem to think that if the person in front of you doesn't get out of your way to make it safe to overtake, it's ok to overtake anyway.
Gaz. said:
If the prick on the bike was in a car, and he had chased another driver as fast as he could, nearly run over three people over and then confronted the first driver everyone would still have condemned his actions and I hope you would too (and you never know TVP might nick him for it).
I think the film was speeded up.Mave said:
That's probably because pretty much everyone has condemned his behaviour post overtake. There's nothing more to debate because everyone is in agreement.
What's pretty disappointing on a forum for driving enthusiasts is the number of people who seem to think that if the person in front of you doesn't get out of your way to make it safe to overtake, it's ok to overtake anyway.
That is a valid conclusion - if we agree that it was a poor overtake...What's pretty disappointing on a forum for driving enthusiasts is the number of people who seem to think that if the person in front of you doesn't get out of your way to make it safe to overtake, it's ok to overtake anyway.
however there seem to be about two people on here saying it was a poor overtake and therefore the cyclist was entitled to do whatever he wanted...
a few more people saying it was a poor overtake, but not unusual
lots of people saying that while it may not be a perfect overtake it is the norm for built up areas, and there was plenty of room in that road for car and bike
a few people saying that the car driver was fine and the cyclist selfish...
so based on that the vast majority seem to accept that actually it was a perfectly normal urban overtake - there was room for both, and the cyclist made an issue out of nothing simply because (insert here the huge evidence of his crusading spirit!) he has some point to get across, however far he needs to go in doing so...
actually the whole point of this is that the overtake is irrelevant as it was normal - and it is the cyclists crusading intentions / post-overtake provocation and then illegal cycling which are most worthy of comment (oh and a comedy fall from one participant!)
at no point has anyone said / assumed (that I have noticed!) that it is okay to overtake when not safe - however equally no-one seems to take your view that the person in front has to get out of the way for you to overtake - overtaking tends to happen when the person in front doesn't get out of the way...
This thread can be summarised as follows, cyclists are protected by rules which clearly define the risks which other road users can expose cyclists to. Those who don't follow those rules down to a t (say overtake leaving 99cm space rather than 1m) are criminals and their faces and personal details will be put on youtube/internet for public naming and shaming. Cyclists however can interpret and adjust the rules on the fly and can never be wrong. No logical reason why, just because. Some say it's due to them saving our beautiful planet. Others say that it's because they have no plates and as such there is no risk of them being made accountable for their actions or named and shamed (e.g. the who run over a child on a pavement not so long ago).
The fact is, dealing with modern cyclist is like dealing with ebola, best avoid any contact.
who run over a child on a pavement not so long ago). The fact is, dealing with modern cyclist is like dealing with ebola, best avoid any contact.
Mave said:
doogz said:
You don't? How do you manage that? As I said, visibility is crap out of my cat, so I regularly contort myself into daft positions to get a good look out the limited window area.
Wearing a cat as a hat is your problem. I find a fox fits better, the eyes are further apart :-) Oh god I've just realised he rides on all the roads around where I live.
I think this sums it up for me, nothing much wrong with it, guy is apologetic, but he feels the need to stop and try to goad him into a confrontation!
http://youtu.be/Kk3MM69eKjM
May have to give him a blast from the Tuscan exhaust if I see him.
I think this sums it up for me, nothing much wrong with it, guy is apologetic, but he feels the need to stop and try to goad him into a confrontation!
http://youtu.be/Kk3MM69eKjM
May have to give him a blast from the Tuscan exhaust if I see him.
MrChips said:
I think this sums it up for me, nothing much wrong with it, guy is apologetic, but he feels the need to stop and try to goad him into a confrontation!
http://youtu.be/Kk3MM69eKjM
I love how calm the driver remains during the exchange. That turns out to be this whttp://youtu.be/Kk3MM69eKjM
ker's kryptonite. I believe he should be sectioned as he's behaviour displays a clear pattern which creates a danger to public safety...akirk said:
That is a valid conclusion - if we agree that it was a poor overtake...
however there seem to be about two people on here saying it was a poor overtake and therefore the cyclist was entitled to do whatever he wanted...
a few more people saying it was a poor overtake, but not unusual
lots of people saying that while it may not be a perfect overtake it is the norm for built up areas, and there was plenty of room in that road for car and bike
a few people saying that the car driver was fine and the cyclist selfish...
so based on that the vast majority seem to accept that actually it was a perfectly normal urban overtake
That's one spin to your summary. But if you look at your summary in detail, only a few thought that the overtake was fine, even though it represented the norm. And that's the problem. There are a lot of regular urban overtakes that are not fine. This is what breeds people like the helmet cam man. People like him breed on poor driving - let's not confuse the symptom with the disease.however there seem to be about two people on here saying it was a poor overtake and therefore the cyclist was entitled to do whatever he wanted...
a few more people saying it was a poor overtake, but not unusual
lots of people saying that while it may not be a perfect overtake it is the norm for built up areas, and there was plenty of room in that road for car and bike
a few people saying that the car driver was fine and the cyclist selfish...
so based on that the vast majority seem to accept that actually it was a perfectly normal urban overtake
Artey said:
This thread can be summarised as follows, cyclists are protected by rules which clearly define the risks which other road users can expose cyclists to. Those who don't follow those rules down to a t (say overtake leaving 99cm space rather than 1m) are criminals and their faces and personal details will be put on youtube/internet for public naming and shaming. Cyclists however can interpret and adjust the rules on the fly and can never be wrong. No logical reason why, just because. Some say it's due to them saving our beautiful planet. Others say that it's because they have no plates and as such there is no risk of them being made accountable for their actions or named and shamed (e.g. the who run over a child on a pavement not so long ago).
The fact is, dealing with modern cyclist is like dealing with ebola, best avoid any contact.
Or, summarised as people not bothering to read and consider people's points of view, and then make up a summary which is nothing to do with what's been said who run over a child on a pavement not so long ago). The fact is, dealing with modern cyclist is like dealing with ebola, best avoid any contact.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff