BBC helmet cam film to explore cyclist-motorist conflict

[PK99]

most of the time they're travelling at under ten miles an hour.

By the way, Crock, nobody's interested in your undoubted athleticism. The big news is that Agent Hilda, riding her Brompton, is faster than a car in rush hour.

that is redefining the argument - the point as put originally refereed to overtaking cyclists in towns not to rush hour average speeds

 

[Dan B]

and other traffic should stay behind the old biddy ex teacher I know who cycles along that road a little more then walking pace as she finds cycling easier than walking?

If it can't overtake safely and considerately, yes. Road sweepers move at about that speed and everyone seems to manage around them

 

[PK99]

And if the ex teacher were in a car driving slowly, what then?

complete straw man

 

[mickle]

And equestrians.

 

[PK99]

If it can't overtake safely and considerately, yes. Road sweepers move at about that speed and everyone seems to manage around them

again a straw man. the point as originally put related to overtaking per se not un-safe overtake:

 

[Dan B]

again a straw man. the point as originally put related to overtaking per se not un-safe overtake:

Your point may have related to overtaking per se, but the context in which you made it was clearly about situations in which a safe overtake is not possible. If you can overtake safely, go ahead and do so, if you want to.

Wot Dell said. I don't have a great problem with pointless overtakes provided it's done in accordance with the Highway Code. But if there isn't room, the motorist isn't placed at any disadvantage by following the cyclist.

What he said

 

[SportMonkey]

again a straw man. the point as originally put related to overtaking per se not un-safe overtake:

My main objection is the word need

That's a myth. Average speed, absolutely, but traffic surges. 0-30mph routinely. Bikes cruise at 10-20mph on the whole.


Cyclists need to be overtaken.

When is an overtake of any other vehicle a need, not a want.

need

Pronunciation: /niːd/
Definition of need
verb

[with object]

• 1require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable

 

[Jimmy Doug]

I also think that there is a growing number of adult cyclists who don’t drive and haven’t learnt basic road sense and should not be allowed out on their own.

I also think there is a growing number of adult drivers who haven't learnt basic road sense and should not be allowed out on their own

 

[Dusty66]

I haven't contributed much to this thread, but I want to point out that you're sounding a lot like one of the people in the film. The taxi driver who got upset when Gaz touched his car. He said something very similar, and yet it's quite clear from the film that he is a dangerous driver. I'm sure you've heard people talking about the stereotypical older driver who hasn't hit anyone, but leaves a wake of destruction behind them.

Your comment made me laugh. At which point did I become the "stereotypical older driver" leaving a "wake of destruction"? Was it at 20, 30 or 40? How old are you?!

 

[Twilkes]

Will probably watch it tomorrow, but was surprised that it is number 3 in iPlayer's most popular programme list. Tracy Beaker is nowhere to be seen.

 

[BentMikey]

again a straw man. the point as originally put related to overtaking per se not un-safe overtake:

and other traffic should stay behind the old biddy ex teacher I know who cycles along that road a little more then walking pace as she finds cycling easier than walking?

It's very easy indeed. DON'T PUT OTHER PEOPLE IN DANGER. Or stop driving and get off the road.

If it's a poorer-than-highway code standard overtake, the risk is increased. That risk might be acceptable to you, but it wouldn't be in a driving test, and that's the standard of measure used in the UK.

 

[veloevol]

the production company did two particular things to Gaz that I think where underhand:

1 - the licking of the lips - it did and offered nothing.

2 - did anyone notice the camera was lower, looking up towards Gaz (may not have been intentional though) while every other camera was level with the interviewees head/eye?

*edit - spelling

Indeed the camera angle was to infer he was looking down his nose at the average viewer which IMO was and is not the case with Gaz. I suspect he wants the same as most of us, that drivers calm the feck down around cyclists.

 

[Jon2]

Your comment made me laugh. At which point did I become the "stereotypical older driver" leaving a "wake of destruction"? Was it at 20, 30 or 40? How old are you?!

I didn't mean you are an older driver, I was just making a comparison to a well known idea to show that it is very easy not to hit anyone and still be dangerous and cause other road users to collide.

If it makes a difference I'm 20, with no more driving experience that the 20 hours it took to pass my test. Also, if I had started driving at that time then I would have probably been one of the drivers who leaves a wake of destruction. The many miles cycling I've done since then has improved my road sense hugely.

 

[summerdays]

If it can't overtake safely and considerately, yes. Road sweepers move at about that speed and everyone seems to manage around them

Yesterday I sat behind a road sweeper doing between 3 and 4 mph ... yes I was behind long enough to watch his speed fluctuate, and I stayed there until it was safe to pass when he pulled in. It was a very narrow road (private road used by large numbers of cyclists), I could have squeezed past in the same way that drivers pass me - but I knew it wouldn't be forever.

 

[BentMikey]

If you leave 5 or 10 minutes early, that'll take away much of the pressure to rush and drive badly, IMO. Impatience, and trying to do too much in too little time, is perhaps the biggest overall failing on our roads. I'm guilty of it too, sometimes, but I try to compensate and avoid the problem by allowing plenty of time to get to places.