Another cyclist dies in London

[Digby]

You may as well give up on the close pass, thing.

I tried before.

"Given how riders do not like even a slow close pass, why do they get so close when they pass?"

"Cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage...."

"Why do so many riders get so close to them, then!?"

"Erm, because, erm.....cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage"

"So why do so many riders risk it?

"Well, because cars and trucks are bad and heavy and do great damage"

"That makes no sense at all"

"Well, because.....YOU LYING TROLL!!"

[Finlandia]

Digby said:

You may as well give up on the close pass, thing.

I tried before.

"Given how riders do not like even a slow close pass, why do they get so close when they pass?"

"Cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage...."

"Why do so many riders get so close to them, then!?"

"Erm, because, erm.....cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage"

"So why do so many riders risk it?

"Well, because cars and trucks are bad and heavy and do great damage"

"That makes no sense at all"

"Well, because.....YOU LYING TROLL!!"

Don't forget.

"Cars going through red are a real problem"

"Yes, and cyclist going through red are too"

"No they are not, a cyclist colliding with someone will not kill that someone, while a car probably will"

"Yes and a cyclist going through red can be hit by a car"

"Umm, yeah but... green only means proceed if safe to do so"

"And red always means stop"

"Troll"

[DoubleD]

You shouldnt closely pass any other road user at speed. You are asking for trouble if you do.

There is no argument for close passes at speed, if you do close pass at speed then you are stupid.

[Stickyfinger]

Mave said:

The dangers aren't the same because the likely causes of the collision aren't the same - but even if they were, the resulting speed differential plays out differently because the scenarios aren't opposites of each other.
The speeds may be opposites, but the one bouncing on the floor / the one trying to stop are different.

In one scenario you've got a bike sliding along the ground at 25mph with a car behind slowing from 10mph trying to stop. In the other scenario you got a bike sliding along the ground at 10mph with a car at 25mph trying to stop. Just an example of how the opposite scenario doesn't play out equally the other way round.

Again you try to divert with added complication.........

We are talking about the space NEXT to the car.....the speed differential makes no difference. The cyclist is on the ground next to the car with the only difference being if there is a Safe Space or not on both occasions.

[SystemParanoia]

Mave said:

SystemParanoia said:

Cyclist into car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA

And you've demonstrated my point. If a car had run into a stationary cyclist at the same speed, the outcome would have been different. Same speed differential but different scenarios = different outcomes.

Car into bike(s)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAYA3W1OUtM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3BLwcyDwuo

Edited by SystemParanoia on Thursday 19th October 19:44

[Dr Murdoch]

Mave said:

The dangers aren't the same because the likely causes of the collision aren't the same - but even if they were, the resulting speed differential plays out differently because the scenarios aren't opposites of each other.
The speeds may be opposites, but the one bouncing on the floor / the one trying to stop are different.

In one scenario you've got a bike sliding along the ground at 25mph with a car behind slowing from 10mph trying to stop. In the other scenario you got a bike sliding along the ground at 10mph with a car at 25mph trying to stop. Just an example of how the opposite scenario doesn't play out equally the other way round.

Just for starters, if a car clips the handlebars as they are passing the cyclist, the cyclist will more likely fall towards the car (think of the physics).

If a cyclist clips a car with its handlebars as it is undertaking, the cyclist will fall away from the car.

I've worked in road safety and road safety engineering for best part of 20 years, studying collision data during that period, i've not come across an injury resulting from a collision that involved a cyclist undertaking and then being run over. However, there are many involving cars striking cyclists, resulting in injury.

[Mave]

Stickyfinger said:

Again you try to divert with added complication.........

We are talking about the space NEXT to the car.....the speed differential makes no difference. The cyclist is on the ground next to the car with the only difference being if there is a Safe Space or not on both occasions.

I'm not adding complication, I'm answering the question you posed based on what I think is a realistic scenario. If "we" are talking about a different, specific scenario then "we" need to define it more clearly.

In your idealised scenario above, if the cyclist is on the ground next to the car then it doesn't matter who is doing what speed because there isn't a collision!

[SystemParanoia]

SystemParanoia said:

Mave said:

SystemParanoia said:

Cyclist into car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrKLGEOVRA

And you've demonstrated my point. If a car had run into a stationary cyclist at the same speed, the outcome would have been different. Same speed differential but different scenarios = different outcomes.

Car into bike(s)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAYA3W1OUtM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3BLwcyDwuo

Edited by SystemParanoia on Thursday 19th October 19:44

Bike rear ends bike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTVFz916Ez4

Bike vs Bike head on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RH5HBq5hOg

[Stickyfinger]

Mave said:

I'm not adding complication, I'm answering the question you posed based on what I think is a realistic scenario. If "we" are talking about a different, specific scenario then "we" need to define it more clearly.

In your idealised scenario above, if the cyclist is on the ground next to the car then it doesn't matter who is doing what speed because there isn't a collision!

With a Safe Space there is no problem with either situation is there .....which is my point......I see we have finally got there.
Neither the Car nor the Cyclist should remove the Safe Space by their actions for the sake of the Cyclist's safety.

I note "you" all are still ignoring the effect on the safety of the centrally filtering M/Bike riders.....who are more vulnerable than all according to Heeeebeee

[DoubleD]

Dr Murdoch said:

Just for starters, if a car clips the handlebars as they are passing the cyclist, the cyclist will more likely fall towards the car (think of the physics).

If a cyclist clips a car with its handlebars as it is undertaking, the cyclist will fall away from the car.

I've worked in road safety and road safety engineering for best part of 20 years, studying collision data during that period, i've not come across an injury resulting from a collision that involved a cyclist undertaking and then being run over. However, there are many involving cars striking cyclists, resulting in injury.

What if a driver doesnt see you and moves towards the curb?

What if they stop and someone opens the door?

What if you do clip the car and come off?

If a driver sees you closely passing he might think that close passes are ok.

Is it ever a good idea to closely pass another road user at speed?
Obviously the answer is no.

[Mave]

Stickyfinger said:

Mave said:

I'm not adding complication, I'm answering the question you posed based on what I think is a realistic scenario. If "we" are talking about a different, specific scenario then "we" need to define it more clearly.

In your idealised scenario above, if the cyclist is on the ground next to the car then it doesn't matter who is doing what speed because there isn't a collision!

With a Safe Space there is no problem with either situation is there .....which is my point......I see we have finally got there.
Neither the Car nor the Cyclist should remove the Safe Space by their actions for the sake of the Cyclist's safety.

No, we haven't finally got there because we weren't addressing the subject of safe space. We were specifically addressing your question about relative speeds and collisions. The question of what constitutes safe space for different vehicles and speeds is separate.

Edited by Mave on Thursday 19th October 19:58

[Stickyfinger]

So a Safe Space is only safe when a cyclist decides.....just like red lights then

Nothing here has convinced me to risk being haunted by an accident....I think I will carry on giving 1.5 meters when safe and giving space to central filtering M/Bikes when there is insufficient room on the inside to do so safely............hey, at least most Bikers say thank you with a wave unlike cyclists.

[Dr Murdoch]

DoubleD said:

What if a driver doesnt see you and moves towards the curb?

What if they stop and someone opens the door?

What if you do clip the car and come off?

If a driver sees you closely passing he might think that close passes are ok.

Is it ever a good idea to closely pass another road user at speed?
Obviously the answer is no.

What if a driver doesn't see you and moves towards the curb? Less dangerous than if the cyclists was overtaking, like a motorcyclist would do in the same situation. However, they will be slow speeds, and thus 'normally' avoidable (clearly increased risk if pedestrian guard railing were present!). Chap before was insinuating undertaking at mph, in reality it doesn't happen, speeds are for a less circa 13mph. If a cyclists does over take at that speed then there could well be trouble!

What if they stop and someone opens the door? Ditto overtaking park cars

What if you do clip the car and come off? Travelling at slower speeds, 99% filtering cyclists are in traffic and not running at general traffic speeds, if it happenedin free flowing traffic it could be serious.

If a driver sees you closely passing he might think that close passes are ok. If you're dense.

Is it ever a good idea to closely pass another road user at speed? No.
Obviously the answer is no.

[DoubleD]

Dr Murdoch said:

DoubleD said:

What if a driver doesnt see you and moves towards the curb?

What if they stop and someone opens the door?

What if you do clip the car and come off?

If a driver sees you closely passing he might think that close passes are ok.

Is it ever a good idea to closely pass another road user at speed?
Obviously the answer is no.

What if a driver doesn't see you and moves towards the curb? Less dangerous than if the cyclists was overtaking, like a motorcyclist would do in the same situation. However, they will be slow speeds, and thus 'normally' avoidable (clearly increased risk if pedestrian guard railing were present!). Chap before was insinuating undertaking at mph, in reality it doesn't happen, speeds are for a less circa 13mph. If a cyclists does over take at that speed then there could well be trouble!

What if they stop and someone opens the door? Ditto overtaking park cars

What if you do clip the car and come off? Travelling at slower speeds, 99% filtering cyclists are in traffic and not running at general traffic speeds, if it happenedin free flowing traffic it could be serious.

If a driver sees you closely passing he might think that close passes are ok. If you're dense.

Is it ever a good idea to closely pass another road user at speed? No.
Obviously the answer is no.

Good i am glad that we agree that closely passing another road user at speed is not a good idea. I have mentioned speed all the way through this, edging past cars closely is unlikely to be particularly dangerous, but yes at speed it is.

So should you closely pass any other road user at speed? No.

[Mave]

Stickyfinger said:

So a Safe Space is only safe when a cyclist decides.....just like red lights then

How can you come to that summary when it hasn't even been discussed?

Stickyfinger said:

Nothing here has convinced me to risk being haunted by an accident.....

So you've read various posts in response to your question; do they answer it, or do you still not see there are differences between a car overtaking a bike, and vice versa?

[Digby]

SystemParanoia said:

Bike rear ends bike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTVFz916Ez4

Bike vs Bike head on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RH5HBq5hOg

Comments underneath:

"This exactly supports what I have been saying for ages. In the UK we have cyclists and we have assholes on bikes who are racing on the roads to beat personal best times. If we magically all switched to bikes tomorrow there would be chaos. Also, the racing aholes would be driven (more) insane by not being able to do the speeds they can by ignoring traffic rules and laws like they can today. You better believe that they don't want Mum and Auntie Angie dithering along slowing everyone down on pushbikes while they get the shopping in. Compare the traffic flow of these bikes to the flow of cars. Cars all travel at more or less the same speed. These inconsiderate arses aren't about to have any of that.

Have to agree with that, especially in London.

[Stickyfinger]

Mave said:

[

Stickyfinger said:

Nothing here has convinced me to risk being haunted by an accident.....

So you've read various posts in response to your question; do they answer it, or do you still not see there are differences between a car overtaking a bike, and vice versa?

There is none, a safe space is a safe space no matter who is "overtaking"...........If there is forward movement of the car naturally.

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

Digby said:

You may as well give up on the close pass, thing.

I tried before.

"Given how riders do not like even a slow close pass, why do they get so close when they pass?"

"Cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage...."

"Why do so many riders get so close to them, then!?"

"Erm, because, erm.....cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage"

"So why do so many riders risk it?

"Well, because cars and trucks are bad and heavy and do great damage"

"That makes no sense at all"

"Well, because.....YOU LYING TROLL!!"

Don't forget.

"Cars going through red are a real problem"

"Yes, and cyclist going through red are too"

"No they are not, a cyclist colliding with someone will not kill that someone, while a car probably will"

"Yes and a cyclist going through red can be hit by a car"

"Umm, yeah but... green only means proceed if safe to do so"

"And red always means stop"

"Troll"

That just about sums this thread up!

[nickfrog]

Stickyfinger said:

hey, at least most Bikers say thank you with a wave unlike cyclists.

I would say bikers thank you 1 out of 10 times. Probably similar to cyclists as the vehicle used has nothing to do with anything. Morons can be found in any vehicle, including cars.

So much intellectual dishonesty.

[Dr Murdoch]

DoubleD said:

I have mentioned speed all the way through this.

Apologies, had not really followed this thread, and was responding to someone else.

But yes, the bigger difference in speed, and if there were a collision, it would more likely result in injury (to the cyclist).

Cyclists tend to undertake slower than cars overtake, and the physics involved if they were to touch doesn't favour the rider who does not have a safety cell, and will be pulled towards the overtaking vehicle.

Ban cycling?
Ban overtaking?