Closest overtake ever

[goo_mason]

I've just called the police and they require that I pop into a station and report it there (and to bring the video along). I won't manage until Friday.

It will be interesting to see what their response is.

Especially as you took their advice, didn't chase after the driver to give him some advice, and reported it to them as they said in front of the Scottish nation on teatime news telly. Surely they wouldn't take no action after such a public statement was made ?

I hope they have a wee word with the driver at least and make him aware of the seriousness of his actions.

 

[magnatom]

Especially as you took their advice, didn't chase after the driver to give him some advice, and reported it to them as they said in front of the Scottish nation on teatime news telly. Surely they wouldn't take no action after such a public statement was made ?

I hope they have a wee word with the driver at least and make him aware of the seriousness of his actions.

To be fair goo, I just wasn't capable of keeping up with him.....

 

[Origamist]

...implies complet immutability in your stance, and it isn't worth my time providing any kind of data or reference for you.

Quite the opposite. My position vis a vis Forester has evolved over the years. So please, humour me, and produce evidence to support your statement.

It is a shame that you do not want to question your own beliefs or even hold them up to cursory scrutiny.

PS "complet (sic) immutability" is a strong candidate for tautology of the day!

 

[Aperitif]

Origamist, do you ride a 'folder' by any chance?

Keep up your good work Magnatom. May your shaves be not so close.

 

[Nigeyy]

Yes, you are. If you act in a way which othere erroeneously believe is required of you, you're reinforcing that erroneous view. Doesn't mean that you should never do it, but its impossible to dispute that fact.

What?

Legal/not legal does make a difference. If you're legally allowed to do it and others are required to look out for people doing it, then of course it makes a difference.

Only in terms of legalities -i.e. taking someone to court. Of course, that's if you're alive, have full use of your limbs, etc. But if you want to be dead right in the legal sense all the time, be my guest. Again, you pays your money, you takes your choice. I'd still avoid legal but not worth the risk activities myself.

Yes. The probability of passing by an unobservant driver is increased; yet the probability of an unobservant driver opening a door that leads straight in to traffic is tiny, getting doored is usually the result of filtering kerb side or going too close around the outside of a parked vehicle. I maintain that I have never seen nor hear of any cyclist getting doored between lanes of traffic. So, simply, you're multiplying up a risk that is negligible, the risk is still therefore negligible,

Not according to my observations. Your eyesight may differ. But regardless, as I see it, you're the one taking the risk and it's your choice and I don't have a problem with that (mind you, if you act in a way which others erroneously believe is required of you, you're reinforcing that erroneous view).

Indeed. You can make mistakes and get things all wrong. True of all cycling. But now you're getting to the point where you just don't ride in traffic because of your own fallibility.

That's true, but your extrapolation is incorrect for me. As an individual you must evaluate situations and I didn't mention anything about where you just don't ride in traffic. Your words, not mine.

There are hundreds, even thousands of footpaths crossing railway lines, many of them with no signals at all, no level crossing, yet people regularly fail to be run over by trains. In fact those places where it is safe and legal for people to cross or move along railway lines are spectacularly safe. Not sure what point you're making there to be honest. You're comparing a safe action with filtering between lanes of static traffic...

Again, you missed the point. If you can't see the point, then I can't help you!

That traffic in the example was bumper to bumper, no one could move out until it started to shift. Mag wasn't going to be hit by someone changing lanes there because no one could possibly change lanes without sideswiping another vehicle.

I should have been clearer; I've seen people nudge out just prior to changing lanes. Additionally once traffic starts moving, it's certainly not unknown for someone to change lane to avoid a car turning ahead.

I didn't accuse you of blaming Mag, I asserted more strongly than you had that not only was this not Mags fault, but the filtering issue is utterly, totally irrelevent to the matter in hand because there is no vague link between the two.

Then why mention it? I was clear (if you'd read my post carefully) that it wasn't a consideration in the incident Magnatom posted.

Cab, I think you should start taking a deep breath before you reply to people and read their posts thoroughly!

 

[mr_hippo]

(1) Err, yes please. It's the other driver's responsibility to be aware of traffic on the road they are turning on to. Obviously Mags *needed* to adjust based on the driver's acute lack of braincells, but the point is he *shouldn't* have to in the first place if the driver could actually drive properly.

(2) And you were totally relaxed about this were you. The fact that you, driving sensibly and correctly, had to adjust for someone else's lack of care/attention? Yeah. Pull the other one, it's got bells attached.

(3) Errr, I would have thought it was patently obvious they weren't thinking. Never said anything about what they *were* thinking. Can you read?

(1) Are you trying to tell me that the person on the main road has no responsibility at all to other road users?
(2) Don't you or do you just plough into them?
(3) Yes, I do read but it is patently obvious that you do not! You said "They approached the junction, slowed to a stop, waited for Mags to get closer and then pulled out!!" So if they waited... and then pulled out; it was conscious decision so they were thinking.

 

[Cab]

Quite the opposite. My position vis a vis Forester has evolved over the years. So please, humour me, and produce evidence to support your statement.

Nope, sorry. I neither know you nor can be bothered humouring you; your stance (here, the first time I've encountered you) seems entirely unconstructive. So, no.

 

[magnatom]

We are beginning to get into such detail now that I am sure someone will suggest that the particular breakfast I had before I set off would have a bearing on the incident.
Perhaps different breakfast constituents would sit differently in my stomach affecting my balance in different ways. If only I had had toast instead of cornflakes then I wouldn't have wobbled slightly just as I set off from the lights, suggesting to the following driver that I was going to pull over to the left of the lane. Due to said wobble he felt justified to proceed with the overtake as he was sure that my cornflake wobble would take me far enough over to allow for a safe overtake.

Damn. From now on I will definitely be having toast for breakfast. See I am willing to learn from my mistakes!


P.S. I never imagined I would ever write a sentence with the words cornflake wobble in it!

 

[Crackle]

You're not really assimilating the points put to you in making that comment.

You suggested secondary at and through this junction - whilst it's possible, it's definitely not good practice.

I dunno, nip out for a couple of hours bike ride, no incidents and there's another six pages to assimiliate.

I am assimilating what's put to me. I'm rejecting it and questioning why you think what Magnatom did is correct. You've had two alternatives put forward both of which are pretty viable in my book but no, only the perscribed Cyclecraft interpretation as supplied by you is correct. You've got lots of people questioning it but again oh no, none of us have seen the light have we: I'm out!

So Magnatom has anything that's been said changed the way you'd do that next time or are you currently sticking to your guns?

 

[Cab]

What?

For example, most cyclists ride in very timid positions. They're wrong to do so, but its so common as to be almost universal in many cities; ride assertively there and you'll have people winding their windows down to berate you for being in the wrong place. The more of us ride a certain way, the more we reinforce the impression that this is how we must ride.

I'm all for waiting in traffic when appropriate, but I won't encourage others to do so where filtering is appropriate because I don't choose to reinforde the erroneous idea that many motorists have that cyclists should not be doing so.

Only in terms of legalities -i.e. taking someone to court. Of course, that's if you're alive, have full use of your limbs, etc. But if you want to be dead right in the legal sense all the time, be my guest. Again, you pays your money, you takes your choice. I'd still avoid legal but not worth the risk activities myself.

Yet you have not justified elevated risk; and as such, because it is legal and it is not demonstrably more dangerous, I'd encourage experienced cyclists to ride in this way. The more of us do it, the more we'll be noticed, the more people will look in their mirrors. It isn't just about insisting on it being legal so I'll do it, its the simple reality that if we do not excercise such legal rights then they become less readily available to us.

Not according to my observations. Your eyesight may differ. But regardless, as I see it, you're the one taking the risk and it's your choice and I don't have a problem with that (mind you, if you act in a way which others erroneously believe is required of you, you're reinforcing that erroneous view).

Not according to your observations? But you haven't seen or heard of anyone being doored while filtering either. What observations have you made that show such filtering to be elevating risk?

That's true, but your extrapolation is incorrect for me. As an individual you must evaluate situations and I didn't mention anything about where you just don't ride in traffic. Your words, not mine.

Yet as an individual you've got no evidence that such filtering increases risk. You're not aware of any accidents, you've provided no clear reasoning why its risky. Yet you're insisting that it is.

I put it to you that this is one of those occasions where personal perception of risk is a dubious asset; you're assuming that being between two rows of cars is dangerous because they may move (yet they can't), or they may open their doors (which would be foolhardy and completely useless). Take a step back and think, and it ain't likely to be risky.

Again, you missed the point. If you can't see the point, then I can't help you!

No, you missed the point. I'll make it clearer for you.

You've chosen to defend that this kind of filtering is dangerous by referring to another situation (traversing railway tracks) which you also believe is dangerous. Take personal perception of risk out of the equation and you discover that crossing railway lines, unless you're playing chicken with a train, is not especially dangerous.

So you see, I haven't missed the point, I've merely turned your example around to show to you that your point is probably wrong.

I should have been clearer; I've seen people nudge out just prior to changing lanes. Additionally once traffic starts moving, it's certainly not unknown for someone to change lane to avoid a car turning ahead.

Thats part of the skill of filtering; picking well ahead of you the gaps you can move in to when the lights change, watching traffic movements well ahead such that you're not caught out. I actually find keeping track of these parameters (which are also important when sat in traffic) easier when I'm moving than when I'm not.

Then why mention it? I was clear (if you'd read my post carefully) that it wasn't a consideration in the incident Magnatom posted.

Because the implication of discussing his filtering when the point of the thread was about the close overtake seemed sufficiently serious that it needed addressing.

Cab, I think you should start taking a deep breath before you reply to people and read their posts thoroughly!

And I think that shows that you're not really considering the full contents of my replies before posting.

 

[magnatom]

So Magnatom has anything that's been said changed the way you'd do that next time or are you currently sticking to your guns?

To be quite honest, I probably didn't need to filter there. I was only going to be a few cars back. I will in future try and hold back. It was my, probably, unjustified dislike for being the last in that queue that encouraged me to filter (revving cars at lights behind). I didn't filter today, however there were only three cars in front of me anyway.

However, I do not think my filtering (actually you could class it as overtaking as I had a whole lane free to myself) was safe, and as I said before I have only ever had two incidents when filtering in like that, over the time I have cycled to work.

In my experience I do get less agression and flak when I filter into a space a couple of cars back. Earlier Dom said, that in this situation you have to depend on the kindness of the driver behind. That I think is the advantage. the driver feels that they are being kind to let you in (I do often give a wave as I pull into the lane if it is safe to do so). The fact that they feel they have let you in, reduces the likelihood that they will then push past you, in my experience.

Obviously not on this occasion.

So in summary, yes I probably will think twice about filtering where the gain is small, but I will still filter.

 

[Cab]

I am assimilating what's put to me.

Clearly, you are not, otherwise you would not have just blandly restated your previous argument with no considered response to my last comments directed in your direction.

 

[gambatte]

We are beginning to get into such detail now that I am sure someone will suggest that the particular breakfast I had before I set off would have a bearing on the incident.

Mags - I'd always recommend - full english !

 

[magnatom]

Mags - I'd always recommend - full english !

Well my wife is English.....

 

[Origamist]

Nope, sorry. I neither know you nor can be bothered humouring you; your stance (here, the first time I've encountered you) seems entirely unconstructive. So, no.

What is unconstructive about questioning what has led you to form an opinion? What is unconstructive about highlighting the fact that people have serious doubts about the Forester text you cite as evidence to support your tendentious claim? If you do not want to discuss in more detail what you write on this forum, perhaps you should be a bit more parsimonious with your choice words and views.