Another cyclist dies in London

[Mave]

FiF said:

You do realise there will be a comeback pointing out that those articles say nothing about also leaving room for a motorbike to overtake on the right. It's another of those pointlessly constructed teeing up questions just to create or continue an argument.

That's because, contrary to what a certain lot on PH think, the police are sensible and reckon that no motorcyclist is moronic enough to be overtaking a vehicle when that vehicle is also overtaking and leaving good space to a cyclist.

Maybe you should go and look at who is actually constructing the basis of the teeing up questions? Do you think the articles in the links justify deliberately moving over to block undertaking cyclists?

[FiF]

Mave said:

FiF said:

You do realise there will be a comeback pointing out that those articles say nothing about also leaving room for a motorbike to overtake on the right. It's another of those pointlessly constructed teeing up questions just to create or continue an argument.

That's because, contrary to what a certain lot on PH think, the police are sensible and reckon that no motorcyclist is moronic enough to be overtaking a vehicle when that vehicle is also overtaking and leaving good space to a cyclist.

Maybe you should go and look at who is actually constructing the basis of the teeing up questions? Do you think the articles in the links justify deliberately moving over to block undertaking cyclists?

FFS here comes another one.

No they don't say that, but as I see it, the point he is making, badly, is to question that if a minimum 1.5 gap is necessary for the safe overtake by a vehicle, isn't that gap also necessary for a safe undertake by a cycle Vs a moving vehicle.

Personally I don't agree with his solution and deliberate blocking or positioning to encourage or discourage something.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

You do realise there will be a comeback pointing out that those articles say nothing about also leaving room for a motorbike to overtake on the right. It's another of those pointlessly constructed teeing up questions just to create or continue an argument.

That's because, contrary to what a certain lot on PH think, the police are sensible and reckon that no motorcyclist is moronic enough to be overtaking a vehicle when that vehicle is also overtaking and leaving good space to a cyclist.

Maybe you should go and look at who is
actually constructing the basis of the teeing up questions? Do you think the articles in the links justify deliberately moving over to block undertaking cyclists?

FFS here comes another one.

No they don't say that, but as I see it, the point he is making, badly, is to question that if a minimum 1.5 gap is necessary for the safe overtake by a vehicle, isn't that gap also necessary for a safe undertake by a cycle Vs a moving vehicle.

Personally I don't agree with his solution and deliberate blocking or positioning to encourage or discourage something.

My post was perfectly valid, rational and relevant so why don't you wind your neck in with all your "FFS here comes another one?" You were complaining about people's posting styles not so long ago, maybe you should sort yourself out first and start responding to other people's post in a manner you'd like being responded to yourself.

[FiF]

Mave said:

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

You do realise there will be a comeback pointing out that those articles say nothing about also leaving room for a motorbike to overtake on the right. It's another of those pointlessly constructed teeing up questions just to create or continue an argument.

That's because, contrary to what a certain lot on PH think, the police are sensible and reckon that no motorcyclist is moronic enough to be overtaking a vehicle when that vehicle is also overtaking and leaving good space to a cyclist.

Maybe you should go and look at who is
actually constructing the basis of the teeing up questions? Do you think the articles in the links justify deliberately moving over to block undertaking cyclists?

FFS here comes another one.

No they don't say that, but as I see it, the point he is making, badly, is to question that if a minimum 1.5 gap is necessary for the safe overtake by a vehicle, isn't that gap also necessary for a safe undertake by a cycle Vs a moving vehicle.

Personally I don't agree with his solution and deliberate blocking or positioning to encourage or discourage something.

My post was perfectly valid, rational and relevant so why don't you wind your neck in with all your "FFS here comes another one?" You were complaining about people's posting styles not so long ago, maybe you should sort yourself out first and start responding to other people's post in a manner you'd like being responded to yourself.

I've already told you long time ago what I think about your input on this and other threads. Anyway apologies if it upset you.

So why isn't Sticky's basic point that I've illustrated answered. If it's correct for a driver to leave a minimum 1.5m gap, and presumably risk of prosecution for a close pass as it's not safe, then surely it's not safe in the reverse situation. Or are we heading back into discussion about people deciding which laws apply to them and those which don't, of which all road user subsets are guilty.

[heebeegeetee]

FiF said:

I've already told you long time ago what I think about your input on this and other threads. Anyway apologies if it upset you.

So why isn't Sticky's basic point that I've illustrated answered. If it's correct for a driver to leave a minimum 1.5m gap, and presumably risk of prosecution for a close pass as it's not safe, then surely it's not safe in the reverse situation. Or are we heading back into discussion about people deciding which laws apply to them and those which don't, of which all road user subsets are guilty.

But you're just deliberately looping round to the same repetitive, and nonsensical points. The questions you've asked have been answered time and time and time again, bearing in mind it's a stupid answer in the first place.

You know the answer to the question. You're being entirely disingenuous by posing this question for the umpteenth time, and you're being entirely disingenuous by suggesting a close pass on a car by a cyclist is in any way equivalent to a close pass on a cyclist by a much faster, 1.5 tonne car.

You are being entirely disingenuous and you know it. Why are you knowingly joining in with this repetitive nonsense?

[Mave]

FiF said:

I've already told you long time ago what I think about your input on this and other threads. Anyway apologies if it upset you.

It doesn't particularly upset me but it hardly sets the tone for a sensible discussion if you start it with "FFS here we go again etc." Clearly the point about undertaking cyclists is relevant and of interest, ad you've gone on to raise it, so it's hardly flogging a dead subject.

[WinstonWolf]

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

You do realise there will be a comeback pointing out that those articles say nothing about also leaving room for a motorbike to overtake on the right. It's another of those pointlessly constructed teeing up questions just to create or continue an argument.

That's because, contrary to what a certain lot on PH think, the police are sensible and reckon that no motorcyclist is moronic enough to be overtaking a vehicle when that vehicle is also overtaking and leaving good space to a cyclist.

Maybe you should go and look at who is actually constructing the basis of the teeing up questions? Do you think the articles in the links justify deliberately moving over to block undertaking cyclists?

FFS here comes another one.

No they don't say that, but as I see it, the point he is making, badly, is to question that if a minimum 1.5 gap is necessary for the safe overtake by a vehicle, isn't that gap also necessary for a safe undertake by a cycle Vs a moving vehicle.

Personally I don't agree with his solution and deliberate blocking or positioning to encourage or discourage something.

Physics. Filtering down the inside of stationary traffic on a bicycle is completely different to two and a half tons of car passing a bicycle at 60

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

FiF said:

I've already told you long time ago what I think about your input on this and other threads. Anyway apologies if it upset you.

So why isn't Sticky's basic point that I've illustrated answered. If it's correct for a driver to leave a minimum 1.5m gap, and presumably risk of prosecution for a close pass as it's not safe, then surely it's not safe in the reverse situation. Or are we heading back into discussion about people deciding which laws apply to them and those which don't, of which all road user subsets are guilty.

But you're just deliberately looping round to the same repetitive, and nonsensical points. The questions you've asked have been answered time and time and time again, bearing in mind it's a stupid answer in the first place.

You know the answer to the question. You're being entirely disingenuous by posing this question for the umpteenth time, and you're being entirely disingenuous by suggesting a close pass on a car by a cyclist is in any way equivalent to a close pass on a cyclist by a much faster, 1.5 tonne car.

You are being entirely disingenuous and you know it. Why are you knowingly joining in with this repetitive nonsense?

As I understand it, there are two reasons for the 1.5m safety gap, one, the drag from the overtake draws the cyclist towards the overtaking vehicle, and two, if the cyclist happens to fall, or needs to swerve out towards the road. The first is irrelevant when the cyclist over/undertakes, the second is not.

[Mave]

FiF said:

So why isn't Sticky's basic point that I've illustrated answered. If it's correct for a driver to leave a minimum 1.5m gap, and presumably risk of prosecution for a close pass as it's not safe, then surely it's not safe in the reverse situation.

Some key differences

1) Relative energies - been discussed in the past, no point repeating unless there are any points of specific additional discussion
2) Risk assessment - the risk assessments I do when overtaking in a car are different to undertaking on a bike
3) Control - if you're undertaking you get to choose when to undertake, you can see it develop, and you can choose your fall back options if it goes wrong. When you're overtaken, your control of the situation (and therefore risk) is far less.

FiF said:

Or are we heading back into discussion about people deciding which laws apply to them and those which don't, of which all road user subsets are guilty.

Why don't you stop creating Strawman responses (to use one of Saaby's phrases) just so you can disagree with them?

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

As I understand it, there are two reasons for the 1.5m safety gap, one, the drag from the overtake draws the cyclist towards the overtaking vehicle, and two, if the cyclist happens to fall, or needs to swerve out towards the road. The first is irrelevant when the cyclist over/undertakes, the second is not.

But neither the law nor the police has stated this, as sf asserts. If a cyclist (or anyone else) chooses to run into your car, there's rarely a fat lot you can do about it, and in the recent police initiative, I don't think a single word was said on this aspect.

And of course we're back into the disingenuous aspect of the debate - pretending we're interested in the safety of cyclists.

If we're so interested, given the casualty rate of motorcyclists is so much higher, where are the threads, where is the never ending anti motorcycling rhetoric? Where are the constant complaints of Darwinism etc?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-357067...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 19th October 09:08

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

As I understand it, there are two reasons for the 1.5m safety gap, one, the drag from the overtake draws the cyclist towards the overtaking vehicle, and two, if the cyclist happens to fall, or needs to swerve out towards the road. The first is irrelevant when the cyclist over/undertakes, the second is not.

But neither the law nor the police has stated this, as sf asserts. If a cyclist (or anyone else) chooses to run into your car, there's rarely a fat lot you can do about it, and in the recent police initiative, I don't think a single word was said on this aspect.

And of course we're back into the disingenuous aspect of the debate - pretending we're interested in the safety of cyclists.

If we're so interested, given the casualty rate of motorcyclists is so much higher, where are the threads, where is the never ending anti motorcycling rhetoric? Where are the constant complaints of Darwinism etc?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-357067...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 19th October 09:08

So then, what is the reason for the safe overtaking gap?

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

So then, what is the reason for the safe overtaking gap?

Can't do it right now, but later I'll copy and paste what the west mids police said in their initiative, or you can google it yourself, but I don't recall them saying it applies to undertaking nor a single word from them about motorcycles.

[FiF]

heebeegeetee said:

FiF said:

I've already told you long time ago what I think about your input on this and other threads. Anyway apologies if it upset you.

So why isn't Sticky's basic point that I've illustrated answered. If it's correct for a driver to leave a minimum 1.5m gap, and presumably risk of prosecution for a close pass as it's not safe, then surely it's not safe in the reverse situation. Or are we heading back into discussion about people deciding which laws apply to them and those which don't, of which all road user subsets are guilty.

But you're just deliberately looping round to the same repetitive, and nonsensical points. The questions you've asked have been answered time and time and time again, bearing in mind it's a stupid answer in the first place.

You know the answer to the question. You're being entirely disingenuous by posing this question for the umpteenth time, and you're being entirely disingenuous by suggesting a close pass on a car by a cyclist is in any way equivalent to a close pass on a cyclist by a much faster, 1.5 tonne car.

You are being entirely disingenuous and you know it. Why are you knowingly joining in with this repetitive nonsense?

And you weren't looping back at all, oh no, you never do that. Ever. Lol

I've not asked this question before, and to eliminate for example the WW diversion of pass at 60 vs a cyclist up the inside let's say speeds and differentials are the same, overtaking vehicle/cycle @ 20, overtaken vehicle/cycle @ 10.

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

So then, what is the reason for the safe overtaking gap?

Can't do it right now, but later I'll copy and paste what the west mids police said in their initiative, or you can google it yourself, but I don't recall them saying it applies to undertaking nor a single word from them about motorcycles.

Just in a few words of your own, no need to copy and paste a long article or bring motorcycles into it, what is the reasoning behind the 1.5m safe overtaking gap of cyclists?

[FiF]

Finlandia said:

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

As I understand it, there are two reasons for the 1.5m safety gap, one, the drag from the overtake draws the cyclist towards the overtaking vehicle, and two, if the cyclist happens to fall, or needs to swerve out towards the road. The first is irrelevant when the cyclist over/undertakes, the second is not.

But neither the law nor the police has stated this, as sf asserts. If a cyclist (or anyone else) chooses to run into your car, there's rarely a fat lot you can do about it, and in the recent police initiative, I don't think a single word was said on this aspect.

And of course we're back into the disingenuous aspect of the debate - pretending we're interested in the safety of cyclists.

If we're so interested, given the casualty rate of motorcyclists is so much higher, where are the threads, where is the never ending anti motorcycling rhetoric? Where are the constant complaints of Darwinism etc?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-357067...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 19th October 09:08

So then, what is the reason for the safe overtaking gap?

I'm going to introduce a diversion here, but feel it's relevant. Being interested in safety of myself and others, especially the vulnerable, I asked a question on another thread about the positioning of a cyclist I saw regularly as didn't understand why and needed some education as his motives and desires.

Briefly it concerns a road where into the city, not London, there is a wide, usually empty bus lane, cyclists permitted, and the two way traffic in and out is on the remaining carriageway on two, at times quite narrow lanes. This cyclist rides right up against the white line bordering the bus lane. We had discussions about whether it's avoiding grates, side roads, parked cars, pedestrians stepping out, but on face value it appears to be none of those as he still does it where none of these reasons are present. The reason some suggested, which they claimed to have done, is use a supposed pressure wave from the front of an overtaking vehicle to give them a lift by riding that pressure wave. No idea if that is right or not.

Personally it seems daft, when that guy is in that position, even though he is in the bus lane, the gap is too small and so apply restraint and hang back. Maybe someone woukd claim that the cyclist is holding them up, which suppose technically he is, albeit completely inconsequential in my view. But it's possibly back to point, a rule applies until someone decides they don't want it to apply, for all I know the guy is pissed off I don't overtake so he can get a lift.

[Finlandia]

FiF said:

I'm going to introduce a diversion here, but feel it's relevant. Being interested in safety of myself and others, especially the vulnerable, I asked a question on another thread about the positioning of a cyclist I saw regularly as didn't understand why and needed some education as his motives and desires.

Briefly it concerns a road where into the city, not London, there is a wide, usually empty bus lane, cyclists permitted, and the two way traffic in and out is on the remaining carriageway on two, at times quite narrow lanes. This cyclist rides right up against the white line bordering the bus lane. We had discussions about whether it's avoiding grates, side roads, parked cars, pedestrians stepping out, but on face value it appears to be none of those as he still does it where none of these reasons are present. The reason some suggested, which they claimed to have done, is use a supposed pressure wave from the front of an overtaking vehicle to give them a lift by riding that pressure wave. No idea if that is right or not.

Personally it seems daft, when that guy is in that position, even though he is in the bus lane, the gap is too small and so apply restraint and hang back. Maybe someone woukd claim that the cyclist is holding them up, which suppose technically he is, albeit completely inconsequential in my view. But it's possibly back to point, a rule applies until someone decides they don't want it to apply, for all I know the guy is pissed off I don't overtake so he can get a lift.

It's either that and/or not understanding the danger of it, or then being a bit of a idiot and trying to make a point (the rightest guy in the graveyard).

A bit like the 2+1 roads in Sweden, I'm sure you remember those While it's not against the law to cycle on them, it's advisable not to, if you do, you will have cars and HGVs passing at high speed with not much gap to spare, as most of these type of roads have speed limits in the higher part of the scale, 80-100kph. The stupid thing is that there are usually cycle lanes alongside the roads as well, but some still choose to cycle on the road, and complain about close overtakes.

[Mave]

FiF said:

I'm going to introduce a diversion here, but feel it's relevant. Being interested in safety of myself and others, especially the vulnerable, I asked a question on another thread about the positioning of a cyclist I saw regularly as didn't understand why and needed some education as his motives and desires.

Briefly it concerns a road where into the city, not London, there is a wide, usually empty bus lane, cyclists permitted, and the two way traffic in and out is on the remaining carriageway on two, at times quite narrow lanes. This cyclist rides right up against the white line bordering the bus lane. We had discussions about whether it's avoiding grates, side roads, parked cars, pedestrians stepping out, but on face value it appears to be none of those as he still does it where none of these reasons are present. The reason some suggested, which they claimed to have done, is use a supposed pressure wave from the front of an overtaking vehicle to give them a lift by riding that pressure wave. No idea if that is right or not.

Personally it seems daft, when that guy is in that position, even though he is in the bus lane, the gap is too small and so apply restraint and hang back. Maybe someone woukd claim that the cyclist is holding them up, which suppose technically he is, albeit completely inconsequential in my view. But it's possibly back to point, a rule applies until someone decides they don't want it to apply, for all I know the guy is pissed off I don't overtake so he can get a lift.

Personally I think anyone who deliberately cycles close enough to the side of a bus to get some aero benefit is a bloody idiot.

[SystemParanoia]

Mave said:

FiF said:

I'm going to introduce a diversion here, but feel it's relevant. Being interested in safety of myself and others, especially the vulnerable, I asked a question on another thread about the positioning of a cyclist I saw regularly as didn't understand why and needed some education as his motives and desires.

Briefly it concerns a road where into the city, not London, there is a wide, usually empty bus lane, cyclists permitted, and the two way traffic in and out is on the remaining carriageway on two, at times quite narrow lanes. This cyclist rides right up against the white line bordering the bus lane. We had discussions about whether it's avoiding grates, side roads, parked cars, pedestrians stepping out, but on face value it appears to be none of those as he still does it where none of these reasons are present. The reason some suggested, which they claimed to have done, is use a supposed pressure wave from the front of an overtaking vehicle to give them a lift by riding that pressure wave. No idea if that is right or not.

Personally it seems daft, when that guy is in that position, even though he is in the bus lane, the gap is too small and so apply restraint and hang back. Maybe someone woukd claim that the cyclist is holding them up, which suppose technically he is, albeit completely inconsequential in my view. But it's possibly back to point, a rule applies until someone decides they don't want it to apply, for all I know the guy is pissed off I don't overtake so he can get a lift.

Personally I think anyone who deliberately cycles close enough to the side of a bus to get some aero benefit is a bloody idiot.

How would you get 'aero' from the side of a bus? Lol

[Mave]

SystemParanoia said:

How would you get 'aero' from the side of a bus? Lol

I wouldn't know for sure, because I don't do it.
I do know that the aerodynamic flow around a bus continues around its sides. Do you think the bow wave of a boat for analogy doesn't extend around to the sides LOL

[FiF]

Mave said:

SystemParanoia said:

How would you get 'aero' from the side of a bus? Lol

I wouldn't know for sure, because I don't do it.
I do know that the aerodynamic flow around a bus continues around its sides. Do you think the bow wave of a boat for analogy doesn't extend around to the sides LOL

Because after all it would be really sensible for an expert surfer to ride the bow wave of a supertanker - not.