another F@@@ S@@@ CRAP moment
- Thread starter ricky1980
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AndyRM
XOXO
- Location
- North Shields
Assumption. The mother of all f*ckups.
It adds to an incorrect assumption or second guess on the OP's part. Second guess = dead guess
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
Could also be indicators (the straightening could cause cancelation), could be sunlight, could be brake lights... we just can't tell without higher quality video.
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
Yes and some of them don't have the luxury of being able to make the same mistake again.
Indicator or no indicator - frankly I think it's irrelevant in this situation - there's no way I'd have gone into that gap, whether that car was indicating or not.
OP, that vid was frightening, glad you came to no harm. But I hope you'll be more cautious in future- stay safe and enjoy a long and happy life!
OP, that vid was frightening, glad you came to no harm. But I hope you'll be more cautious in future- stay safe and enjoy a long and happy life!
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
That particular gap, no, but there are situations where I'd filter past a bus in a somewhat similar manner. In this case, most definitely no, and that's because looking ahead it's obvious that there's going to be car movement past the bus, and because the turning car was moving too. Those are obvious signs that I should take the lane and not filter there.
I usually filter only with stationary traffic, because once it starts moving your risk goes up by orders of magnitude.
Risex4
Dropped by the autobus
- Location
- The Green/Gray Hills Of Debunshire
What more can be said; a perfect advert in favor of some kind of road competency test for cyclists.
For me, the indication of the car is a secondary issue here - the indication could have come later or not at all depending on the diligence of the driver; it was general position which was wrong. Simply put you should have taken primary the moment you joined moving traffic in an overtake stream. My personal feeling is that you should be "in the wheel" of a car (blind spot, rear quarter, whatever you want to call it) in the magnitude of 1 or 2 seconds or less than 10 meters - anymore and you are "lost" to the car in front and surrender your escape opportunities. This essentially means filter stationary traffic, or filter slow moving traffic when you know you can clear the hazard zone almost instantly. Dithering around back there is reckless and needless; if the traffic is moving at roughly the same speed as you or you cant clear a car length properly, tuck in and join the queue. Everyone knows where you are then.
Take it on the chin OP. Cycling like this is a simple case of PP; Position (of yourself and everything around you), and Potential (what permutations can happen for whats around you). Not Probability as the problem with that is that sooner or later probability will turn against you, no matter the odds.
It isn't about what a driver has done wrong or what infractions of the highway code you can pin on his number plate, its about your skill as a cyclist to read a perpetually evolving scenario and adapt accordingly. As someone else eluded to it doesn't matter how many rules of the road they've impinged when you're in a box.
And I apologize if that is a tinsiest bit harsh or condescending, but after seeing someone almost lose their face tonight because they filtered a traffic stream which itself was moving at a steady 15-20 mph - just because it was on a down hill and its possible to do 25 down there - inside the door zone and with adjoining junctions blinded by on-road-parking, I'm seriously thinking a cycling proficiency scheme needs to be strongly considered.
For me, the indication of the car is a secondary issue here - the indication could have come later or not at all depending on the diligence of the driver; it was general position which was wrong. Simply put you should have taken primary the moment you joined moving traffic in an overtake stream. My personal feeling is that you should be "in the wheel" of a car (blind spot, rear quarter, whatever you want to call it) in the magnitude of 1 or 2 seconds or less than 10 meters - anymore and you are "lost" to the car in front and surrender your escape opportunities. This essentially means filter stationary traffic, or filter slow moving traffic when you know you can clear the hazard zone almost instantly. Dithering around back there is reckless and needless; if the traffic is moving at roughly the same speed as you or you cant clear a car length properly, tuck in and join the queue. Everyone knows where you are then.
Take it on the chin OP. Cycling like this is a simple case of PP; Position (of yourself and everything around you), and Potential (what permutations can happen for whats around you). Not Probability as the problem with that is that sooner or later probability will turn against you, no matter the odds.
It isn't about what a driver has done wrong or what infractions of the highway code you can pin on his number plate, its about your skill as a cyclist to read a perpetually evolving scenario and adapt accordingly. As someone else eluded to it doesn't matter how many rules of the road they've impinged when you're in a box.
And I apologize if that is a tinsiest bit harsh or condescending, but after seeing someone almost lose their face tonight because they filtered a traffic stream which itself was moving at a steady 15-20 mph - just because it was on a down hill and its possible to do 25 down there - inside the door zone and with adjoining junctions blinded by on-road-parking, I'm seriously thinking a cycling proficiency scheme needs to be strongly considered.
Cycling Dan
Cycle Crazy
BikeOnRoadLondon 22 hours agoHas the OP flounced?
haha, all comments understood, i shall dig a hole in a ground and take my twaty cycling arse and get a life somewhere and drive a tank in the future on the roads
I think he has taken it on a bit strong. Youtube comments have not fared well. 
Hip Priest
Veteran
I'm in two minds. Education would undoubtedly benefit cyclists, but compulsory testing would only serve to put people off. My preference would be a high-profile safety campaign, with a few basic safety tips, such as:
NEVER UNDERTAKE A LARGE VEHICLE AT A JUNCTION
Not sure the word LARGE is needed...!
Risex4
Dropped by the autobus
- Location
- The Green/Gray Hills Of Debunshire
I used to be avidly against any pro-argument for bike "licences", but I now think there is significant scope and merit in something being investigated.
It needn't be compulsory in the strictest sense. Obviously kids and people who peddle down to the local corner shop perhaps needn't be bothered. But two suggestions for a starter; a) incentivise it so an official licence gives perks like reductions on retail prices (subsidised by the government through monies raised from the system); people with more than a passing fancy/once-in-6-month interest in cycling would then have more reason to partake. b) Have certain urban areas designated as "licenced only". Paint kerbs yellow or something and say you need a bike licence to cycle that road. Thinking principly about areas which are danger spots and keeping inexperienced riders away from there.
I don't know, just whim's of ideas off the top of my head. But I am seeing more and more silly cycling on both my commutes and leisure rides, and as cycling grows and more and more people take it up as a form of transportation (as is the Government's stated goal), so will the frequency of these "flashpoints". If ALL of the responsibility for safer roads is shouldered by the motor-drivers, it will only breed resentment and reinforce the stereotype that cyclists have zero respect for other road users while demanding complete respect back when said instances of cycling nobbery go unchecked.
- Status
