Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Finlandia said:
Just in a few words of your own,
Serious question? Is there honestly any point? I don't think you're at all interested in an honest debate, that's all been done already time and again. I think you're only interested in bandying words, you want to win an argument with someone on the internet rather than have an honest debate over a recent and successful (they've claimed a 20% reduction in casualties) campaign about close passes by motorists.
heebeegeetee said:
Serious question? Is there honestly any point? I don't think you're at all interested in an honest debate, that's all been done already time and again.
I think you're only interested in bandying words, you want to win an argument with someone on the internet rather than have an honest debate over a recent and successful (they've claimed a 20% reduction in casualties) campaign about close passes by motorists.
Educating drivers about the 1.5 meter "Safe Space" is a great advance in cyclists safety. No cyclist should ever be put/or go into a space smaller than that "Safe Space" as it is shown by these figure to be unsafe to do so.I think you're only interested in bandying words, you want to win an argument with someone on the internet rather than have an honest debate over a recent and successful (they've claimed a 20% reduction in casualties) campaign about close passes by motorists.
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
Riding beside it will give negligible benefit if any at all.
LOL
FiF said:
And you weren't looping back at all, oh no, you never do that. Ever. Lol
Well I can't do it on my own, I need you guys here to loop with me. These anticycling threads are numerous and repetitive, and normally contain the same repetitive points, starting with "road tax" to "they break the rules ", "red lights " and the normal repetitive stuff which rarely has any basis in fact.
All looped round and round time and time again, and will probably never end. Exactly the same comments can be seen repeatedly on any Daily Mail thread on any cycling matter.
Stickyfinger said:
Educating drivers about the 1.5 meter "Safe Space" is a great advance in cyclists safety. No cyclist should ever be put/or go into a space smaller than that "Safe Space" as it is shown by these figure to be unsafe to do so.
Agreed, but people always will, and it's not what the police or law have addressed afaiaa. heebeegeetee said:
Stickyfinger said:
Educating drivers about the 1.5 meter "Safe Space" is a great advance in cyclists safety. No cyclist should ever be put/or go into a space smaller than that "Safe Space" as it is shown by these figure to be unsafe to do so.
Agreed, but people always will, and it's not what the police or law have addressed afaiaa. DoubleD said:
heebeegeetee said:
Stickyfinger said:
Educating drivers about the 1.5 meter "Safe Space" is a great advance in cyclists safety. No cyclist should ever be put/or go into a space smaller than that "Safe Space" as it is shown by these figure to be unsafe to do so.
Agreed, but people always will, and it's not what the police or law have addressed afaiaa. DoubleD said:
So we have finally all agreed on something then?
No probably not 
. I've just reread his post and realise he's trolling in the latter part of his statement. Close passing by drivers is a real pain in the neck. It's possibly what stops me from cycling and possibly millions of others.
After decades of inaction by the police one police force decided to do something about it (ironically in a region which doesn't have many cyclists) and seem to have produced a result.
It is absolutely terrible imo that there are a
holes like Stickyfinger who will use this laudable work and twist things around to use against cyclists. It really, really pisses me off that there are so many drivers out there like him. One finding of this initiative is that all too often, once stopped by police for a close pass, the driver will say "what cyclist?". Iirc the very first driver stopped under this initiative said this.
Despite so many people supposedly concerned about vulnerable road users (yet rarely/never want to talk about pedestrians or motorcyclists) afaiaa *nobody* has wanted to talk about this aspect. They'll blather on and on and on about 1.5 metres and how it should equally apply to cyclists passing stationary or near-stationary vehicles, but not a word about the dreadful state of affairs of motorists driving so badly and blindly that they never even seen cyclists in the first place.
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
So we have finally all agreed on something then?
No probably not . I've just reread his post and realise he's trolling in the latter part of his statement. Close passing by drivers is a real pain in the neck. It's possibly what stops me from cycling and possibly millions of others.
After decades of inaction by the police one police force decided to do something about it (ironically in a region which doesn't have many cyclists) and seem to have produced a result.
It is absolutely terrible imo that there are a
holes like Stickyfinger who will use this laudable work and twist things around to use against cyclists. It really, really pisses me off that there are so many drivers out there like him. One finding of this initiative is that all too often, once stopped by police for a close pass, the driver will say "what cyclist?". Iirc the very first driver stopped under this initiative said this.
Despite so many people supposedly concerned about vulnerable road users (yet rarely/never want to talk about pedestrians or motorcyclists) afaiaa *nobody* has wanted to talk about this aspect. They'll blather on and on and on about 1.5 metres and how it should equally apply to cyclists passing stationary or near-stationary vehicles, but not a word about the dreadful state of affairs of motorists driving so badly and blindly that they never even seen cyclists in the first place.
A car making a close pass on a cyclist is dangerous as they could be knocked off.
A close pass on a slow moving car is dangerous because you could fall off and go under the wheels of it.
Being close to another road user is pretty stupid and can be dangerous. Its always best to maintain a decent distance from each other.
DoubleD said:
You have got to stop calling people trolls just because you disagree with them.
A car making a close pass on a cyclist is dangerous as they could be knocked off.
A close pass on a slow moving car is dangerous because you could fall off and go under the wheels of it.
Being close to another road user is pretty stupid and can be dangerous. Its always best to maintain a decent distance from each other.
The former, and the issue of drivers not seeing cyclists at all results in good many deaths and injuries and puts a hell of a lot of people off cycling in the uk altogether, especially when the sentences are then so derisory.A car making a close pass on a cyclist is dangerous as they could be knocked off.
A close pass on a slow moving car is dangerous because you could fall off and go under the wheels of it.
Being close to another road user is pretty stupid and can be dangerous. Its always best to maintain a decent distance from each other.
Do you have any figures about the latter? In my 40 years of driving I'm struggling to recall ever reading of a cyclist who went under the wheels because he rode too close.
I'm definitely not saying it doesn't happen, but also I'd say it is definitely not an issue that flags up so often that it can be described as a problem.
Also- I don't have a problem with anyone with an honest opinion, but SF and the like are trolling because they are saying things that they know to be untrue. I think it's fair to call that trolling.
DoubleD said:
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
So we have finally all agreed on something then?
No probably not . I've just reread his post and realise he's trolling in the latter part of his statement. Close passing by drivers is a real pain in the neck. It's possibly what stops me from cycling and possibly millions of others.
After decades of inaction by the police one police force decided to do something about it (ironically in a region which doesn't have many cyclists) and seem to have produced a result.
It is absolutely terrible imo that there are a
holes like Stickyfinger who will use this laudable work and twist things around to use against cyclists. It really, really pisses me off that there are so many drivers out there like him. One finding of this initiative is that all too often, once stopped by police for a close pass, the driver will say "what cyclist?". Iirc the very first driver stopped under this initiative said this.
Despite so many people supposedly concerned about vulnerable road users (yet rarely/never want to talk about pedestrians or motorcyclists) afaiaa *nobody* has wanted to talk about this aspect. They'll blather on and on and on about 1.5 metres and how it should equally apply to cyclists passing stationary or near-stationary vehicles, but not a word about the dreadful state of affairs of motorists driving so badly and blindly that they never even seen cyclists in the first place.
A car making a close pass on a cyclist is dangerous as they could be knocked off.
A close pass on a slow moving car is dangerous because you could fall off and go under the wheels of it.
Being close to another road user is pretty stupid and can be dangerous. Its always best to maintain a decent distance from each other.
Surprise
Space
Speed
Manage all three of those properly and you are in a good place for a safe journey. Compromise on one, and the risk of an issue arising increases. Compromise on two, and the risk increases so much you really don't want to go there. Compromise on all three and it's a matter of when not if you'll be in trouble.
Stickyfinger said:
heebeegeetee said:
Serious question? Is there honestly any point? I don't think you're at all interested in an honest debate, that's all been done already time and again.
I think you're only interested in bandying words, you want to win an argument with someone on the internet rather than have an honest debate over a recent and successful (they've claimed a 20% reduction in casualties) campaign about close passes by motorists.
Educating drivers about the 1.5 meter "Safe Space" is a great advance in cyclists safety. No cyclist should ever be put/or go into a space smaller than that "Safe Space" as it is shown by these figure to be unsafe to do so.I think you're only interested in bandying words, you want to win an argument with someone on the internet rather than have an honest debate over a recent and successful (they've claimed a 20% reduction in casualties) campaign about close passes by motorists.
And they let you drive?
SystemParanoia said:
If you want to draft a bus, you ride behind it up close in the vortex.
Riding beside it will give negligible benefit if any at all.
LOL
Like I said, I don't do it myself. But a vortex doesn't suddenly appear behind a bus. It extends from the front, around the sides, and then to the back LOL.Riding beside it will give negligible benefit if any at all.
LOL
FiF said:
Quite.
Surprise
Space
Speed
Manage all three of those properly and you are in a good place for a safe journey. Compromise on one, and the risk of an issue arising increases. Compromise on two, and the risk increases so much you really don't want to go there. Compromise on all three and it's a matter of when not if you'll be in trouble.
I agree with the principal, but not with the details. Those 3 aren't equal - potentially surprise (or lack of information) is the most critical of the 3 because it prevents you adequately judging the margin of error for the other 2.Surprise
Space
Speed
Manage all three of those properly and you are in a good place for a safe journey. Compromise on one, and the risk of an issue arising increases. Compromise on two, and the risk increases so much you really don't want to go there. Compromise on all three and it's a matter of when not if you'll be in trouble.
Mave said:
FiF said:
Quite.
Surprise
Space
Speed
Manage all three of those properly and you are in a good place for a safe journey. Compromise on one, and the risk of an issue arising increases. Compromise on two, and the risk increases so much you really don't want to go there. Compromise on all three and it's a matter of when not if you'll be in trouble.
I agree with the principal, but not with the details. Those 3 aren't equal - potentially surprise (or lack of information) is the most critical of the 3 because it prevents you adequately judging the margin of error for the other 2.Surprise
Space
Speed
Manage all three of those properly and you are in a good place for a safe journey. Compromise on one, and the risk of an issue arising increases. Compromise on two, and the risk increases so much you really don't want to go there. Compromise on all three and it's a matter of when not if you'll be in trouble.
Mave said:
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 differences1) 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?Just out of interest.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff