Wales again 1.5metres filming

[timbo999]

Master Bean said:

I use the phrase 20s plenty in my overtakes. That's 20cm.

Overtake me like that when I'm on my bike and your wing mirror will 'magically' be folded in (at best....)

[timbo999]

Ares said:

100kg cycle....jeez, what bikes are you riding?

My bike is c7kg. I don't even reach 70kg with me on it.

Well, clearly I was including the rider... you don't see too many bikes cycling down the road without one. Most average hybrid/mountain bikes weigh around 15kg with 'guards, water bottles etc and, other than skinny runts, most people weigh around 75/80kg... so up to 100kg sounds a good approximation.

[V8RX7]

Ares said:

It requires common sense to interpret, understand and implement. It's at that point many fall foul.

Like the speeding laws then.

So that's why the Police won't pull you for breaking a 20 limit when there are no pedestrians about at say 6am



Most Police don't use / have common sense these days

[Ares]

timbo999 said:

Ares said:

100kg cycle....jeez, what bikes are you riding?

My bike is c7kg. I don't even reach 70kg with me on it.

Well, clearly I was including the rider... you don't see too many bikes cycling down the road without one. Most average hybrid/mountain bikes weigh around 15kg with 'guards, water bottles etc and, other than skinny runts, most people weigh around 75/80kg... so up to 100kg sounds a good approximation.

You mean like cyclists

And as it's the 'lycra terrorists' people are moaning about, most are on sub-10kg bikes

[PAULJ5555]

Ares said:

PAULJ5555 said:

timbo999 said:

Cars weigh 1500kg and do 30/40/50/60 mph, cycles weigh 100kg and do 10/15/20/25 mph - you work it out...

And thats the reason it will never work sharing the same road.

As long as both parties engage a few brains cells, it works fine.

Unfortunatly this does not happen, and its not working at the moment.

It possibly could work but we are a fair way off of giving each other the respect to make it work.

[Ares]

V8RX7 said:

Ares said:

It requires common sense to interpret, understand and implement. It's at that point many fall foul.

Like the speeding laws then.

So that's why the Police won't pull you for breaking a 20 limit when there are no pedestrians about at say 6am

mmmm...not really. Speeding is a single factor issue, an often arbitrary set number, often devoid of common sense in it's level, that if you step over is breaking the law. Not really something that it requiring but mental processing, nor being open to interpretation/mitigation.

V8RX7 said:

Most Police don't use / have common sense these days

This much IS true....

[Ares]

PAULJ5555 said:

Ares said:

PAULJ5555 said:

timbo999 said:

Cars weigh 1500kg and do 30/40/50/60 mph, cycles weigh 100kg and do 10/15/20/25 mph - you work it out...

And thats the reason it will never work sharing the same road.

As long as both parties engage a few brains cells, it works fine.

Unfortunatly this does not happen, and its not working at the moment.

It possibly could work but we are a fair way off of giving each other the respect to make it work.

Well, I've ridden around 30,000km in the last 2 years. I've also driven even more than that, and never had an issue. I'd say it's working fine in more circumstances than not. In the majority of the times it doesn't work, it's that brain cell issue.

[Toltec]

yonex said:

The reason it 'doesn't work' is purely down to those that don't respect others. Sad really. Amazes me everytime that these threads get started that the same things get highlighted.

It isn't surprising we still have so many problems with racism when the need to label and vilify groups identified as other just seems to be part of human nature.

Driver, biker, cyclist, horse rider & pedestrian aka road user here.

[oyster]

Pica-Pica said:

yonex said:

Pica-Pica said:

So is this 1.5m gap when passing cyclists, the same as cycliste should use when passing on the inside (or outside) in slow traffic?

In case the cyclist knocks the car over?

No, for their own safety! If they wobble when the car overtakes, they may also wobble when they pass on the left. Can’t have it one way and not the other.

It's not just wobbles, it's deliberate direction changes for potholes/debris etc. If a bicycle is passing a car (inside or outside) then the cyclist can decide on those direction changes based on proximity to the neighbouring car.

[Byker28i]

yellowjack said:

Byker28i said:

Which is entirely right, drivers need to be reeducated if they are antisocial towards other road users.

Now all we need to do is to educate the cyclists, well not all cyclists obviously, just those lycra clad road terrorists

Terrorists? Since when was anyone, ever, "terrorised" by someone who weighs 70 kg wet, perched atop an 8 kg plastic bike? Especially if thepoor "terrorised" individual is sat in over 1000 kg of sheet metal and protective safety cells?

By "terrorised" what the poor snowflakes really mean is "mildly inconvenienced for between a handful of seconds and a couple of minutes". Anything else makes no sense at all.

I was referring to the throbbing nobbers who decide that they shall police the roads.


Take these charming couple who decided that sports cars wouldn't be allowed past and rode in the middle of both lanes for approx 5 miles.

[Master Bean]

timbo999 said:

Master Bean said:

I use the phrase 20s plenty in my overtakes. That's 20cm.

Overtake me like that when I'm on my bike and your wing mirror will 'magically' be folded in (at best....)

And I shall get out of my car and fold it back out.

[timbo999]

Master Bean said:

And I shall get out of my car and fold it back out.

And I'll overtake you and fold the other one in for you... this could go on for miles...

[Ares]

Byker28i said:

I was referring to the throbbing nobbers who decide that they shall police the roads.


Take these charming couple who decided that sports cars wouldn't be allowed past and rode in the middle of both lanes for approx 5 miles.

They rode, purposefully blocking the road for 5 miles?

I call bullst.

[Ares]

Master Bean said:

timbo999 said:

Master Bean said:

I use the phrase 20s plenty in my overtakes. That's 20cm.

Overtake me like that when I'm on my bike and your wing mirror will 'magically' be folded in (at best....)

And I shall get out of my car and fold it back out.

It'll be on the road if you put my life in danger. HTH.

[PAULJ5555]

Ares said:

PAULJ5555 said:

Ares said:

PAULJ5555 said:

timbo999 said:

Cars weigh 1500kg and do 30/40/50/60 mph, cycles weigh 100kg and do 10/15/20/25 mph - you work it out...

And thats the reason it will never work sharing the same road.

As long as both parties engage a few brains cells, it works fine.

Unfortunatly this does not happen, and its not working at the moment.

It possibly could work but we are a fair way off of giving each other the respect to make it work.

Well, I've ridden around 30,000km in the last 2 years. I've also driven even more than that, and never had an issue. I'd say it's working fine in more circumstances than not. In the majority of the times it doesn't work, it's that brain cell issue.

If only we all had the same experience you've had.

Maybe we could have an IQ test/brain cell count for riding a bike or driving a car, Until then cyclists & drivers dont mix well, if they did we would not be even talking about it.

[Ares]

PAULJ5555 said:

If only we all had the same experience you've had.

Maybe we could have an IQ test/brain cell count for riding a bike or driving a car, Until then cyclists & drivers dont mix well, if they did we would not be even talking about it.

It's the chips on shoulders that cause the problem.

[boyse7en]

PAULJ5555 said:

timbo999 said:

Cars weigh 1500kg and do 30/40/50/60 mph, cycles weigh 100kg and do 10/15/20/25 mph - you work it out...

And thats the reason it will never work sharing the same road.

You're advocating that all cars are banned from the roads? Seems a bit Draconian just because a proportion of drivers are inept.

[yellowjack]

Byker28i said:

yellowjack said:

Byker28i said:

Which is entirely right, drivers need to be reeducated if they are antisocial towards other road users.

Now all we need to do is to educate the cyclists, well not all cyclists obviously, just those lycra clad road terrorists

Terrorists? Since when was anyone, ever, "terrorised" by someone who weighs 70 kg wet, perched atop an 8 kg plastic bike? Especially if thepoor "terrorised" individual is sat in over 1000 kg of sheet metal and protective safety cells?

By "terrorised" what the poor snowflakes really mean is "mildly inconvenienced for between a handful of seconds and a couple of minutes". Anything else makes no sense at all.

I was referring to the throbbing nobbers who decide that they shall police the roads.


Take these charming couple who decided that sports cars wouldn't be allowed past and rode in the middle of both lanes for approx 5 miles.

The thing with these two is that they ARE a pair of knobbers if there is no reason for them to have behaved like that. But there are insufficient police patrols to do anything about it. Perhaps there could be a safety campaign aimed at educating cyclists? Police officers in unmarked cars could drive around the Surrey Hills (or another random area popular with road cyclists) until they found a cyclist (or cyclists) behaving badly. Then they could pull them over and challenge their behaviour, offering words of advice. If the advice was refused they could be summonsed for riding inconsiderately. Maybe it would save 23 lives per year? Or perhaps save none at all? And was the sports car driver "terrorised"? They might have been infuriated, frustrated, and delayed, but no-way are those pair of cyclists causing anyone to be "terrorised". Not on any planet I've visited. And yet, further up the thread we've got someone asserting that he overtakes at a distance of 20 cm. Which, if it's a motor vehicle passing a cyclist could well induce genuine "terror". All the while we've got drivers in >1000 kg metal boxes claiming to be "terrorised" by <80 kg of bike + rider. It's ridiculous exaggeration. We've got people claiming 30 minute delays behind "whole pelotons". It's ridiculous exaggeration. Sensationalism on a scale that would be laughed at by those same people if it were used in a "Daily Fail" or "Grauniad" (oh, how we chuckle when 1954's jokes are recycled for the eleventy billionth time) article.

Until drivers quit exaggerating and sensationalising their tall tales of delays. Until drivers accept that it IS dangerous to pass too close to a cyclist. And most of all, until all road users start to realise that there's an awful lot still to learn all through your life on the roads. Until then we'll have this stupid he said/she said circular debate on here, and elsewhere, where opposing camps draw up the wagons and dig in for a long drawn-out battle. And people like me will watch bewildered from a distance, wondering which camp to join and realising that our best bet is neither because ultimately we belong to both.

Several police forces have started this campaign to try to save lives. It's a noble aim. It isn't going to go away so either learn to accept it, or don't. Raging against it will neither alter it nor make it go away. It'll do that on it's own when the next campaign needs some publicity and the same officers currently doing the Safe Passing campaign will be redeployed in a rainbow coloured patrol car to support the local 'Pride' parade, or whatever else is flavour of the month. Ultimately, if everyone had proper respect for the safety of others, and if everyone rode/drove to the standards expected of a competent road user, then we wouldn't need these threads because it would be a non-issue.

As for "we're spouting this drivel because we're concerned for your own safety"?

Pull the other one. My safety is better served by me riding centrally in the lane, where I'm far more likely to be seen by following traffic, and be treated as traffic myself. But almost without exception, those who say things like "it's for your own safety" want me as far to the left as possible, and to remain there at all times. That's not about safety. It's their egocentric concern with not being delayed by bicycle riders, while they exercise staggering levels of self delusion, denying the impact that the millions of other motor vehicles on Britain's roads have on their journey times.

See the light people. Save money, get fitter, get there quicker. Swap your car for a bike for journeys less than 3 miles. It's the way forward, and deep inside you know it's true, too...

[yellowjack]

Ares said:

Byker28i said:

I was referring to the throbbing nobbers who decide that they shall police the roads.


Take these charming couple who decided that sports cars wouldn't be allowed past and rode in the middle of both lanes for approx 5 miles.

They rode, purposefully blocking the road for 5 miles?

I call bullst.

You call bullst, and I agree. Looking closely at those photos, they're no more than a couple of hundred yards from start to finish. And it looks to me like the reason they're further out from the verge is the same reason as the sports car (Griffith?) is further out. And that's to get around cars parked on the road. The road that's provided to allow road users to pass and repass to get from place to place. The road they are obstructing by using it as their own private car park.

So the issue in the photo-story is not ignorant militant cyclists, but ignorant, inconsiderate drivers parking poorly. Picture 1, right hand rider checks back preparing to move out to pass the parked car. Pictures 2 & 3, they're out passing the car. Picture 4? Entirely possible that they're delaying their return to their lane for good reason. Is there another car coming up that they'll need to pass? Or perhaps they're delaying their return deliberately to annoy because the TVR driver is being a dick and getting too close/over-revving/etc? But regardless of what's going on in that set of photos, what is undeniable is that it's four frames shot in quick succession in the same village, and quite definitely NOT spread over 5 miles. If they'd behaved like that for 5 miles you can bet your breakfast that there'd be a whole lot more pictures in the series with identifiable, verifiable geographic separation. How do I know? White van fully visible in pic 1 is still partly visible in pic 2. Distinctive highlighted triangle of roof, and ridge line with chimneys in pic 2 are still visible in pics 3 & 4. Nose of car on right in pic 2 is the rear of the car the cyclists have passed in pic 3. Prominent dark shadow on footway in pic 3 is the Micra on the right in pic 4. Along with any number of specific forms of foliage, architecture, and shadows too minor to detail here. Inconvenient fact: That's not a series of pictures taken over 5 miles. It's not even ¼ of a mile. Like I said elsewhere. Ridiculous exaggeration. And it's rife on these regular threads where someone attempts to start a debate about something relatively serious, and it descends into a "usual suspects" slanging match.

[PAULJ5555]

Ares said:

PAULJ5555 said:

If only we all had the same experience you've had.

Maybe we could have an IQ test/brain cell count for riding a bike or driving a car, Until then cyclists & drivers dont mix well, if they did we would not be even talking about it.

It's the chips on shoulders that cause the problem.

From drivers and cyclists unfortunatly