Closest overtake ever

[magnatom]

So, Mags, did you report it?

I phoned up, but I need to pop in to the station. I will be popping in tomorrow as I am off then. I'll keep you informed.

 

[Cab]

Cab, I was not referring to Magnatom filtering up between the two lines of traffic, but to his cutting in front of the vehicle that later overtook him. I was using the example of being in a car and leaving a car's length in front (for safety) and then having another car come along and cut in front.

The cars were not moving. Until they moved there could be a cars length, two cars lengths, half a cars length, it doesn't matter. Traffic not moving is not dangerous. There is no safety issue.

In similar circumstances, if I wished to cut in, I'd have made eye contact, simply as a matter of courtesy.

It is not clear to me that there was no communication between Mag and the motorist. Nor is it entirely clear to me that this courtesy should be considered anything more than that; a courtesy. Good if you manage it, but neither sufficient to make a rude action polite nor sufficient if lacking to make a permitted action rude.

Assumption:

1. the driver waits at the lights, leaving a smallish gap in front of him
2. filtering (nothing wrong with that) cyclist drops into that gap
3. then, when the lights change, sets off more slowly than the driver would have done, tho' he only loses a few seconds
4. driver gets annoyed and overtakes far too closely in order to express that annoyance or, alternatively, is simply a plonker with no consideration

If either is the case then he shouldn't be in charge of a car. Bottom line; someone does something legal, that is accepted practice, and you react badly to it, then they need to get the hell off our roads. You cannot blame the person who has committed no offense for that, you can't even say that their actions contrinuted to that. Its entirely, 100%, unquestionably the fault of the motorist here, and we do cyclists a disservice by entertaining any other possibility.

One common belief I've seen expressed is that is a dog-eat-dog world and cyclists have to ride accordingly. If that were the case, then traffic wouldn't work at all, but, in reality, the vast majority of road users co-operate with each other. Admittedly, not on every occasion, but sufficiently to enable traffic to flow reasonably smoothly.

While Magnatom has every right to regard that piece of overtaking as appallingly and dangerously close, I am of the opinion that his own riding contributed to the circumstances of that overtaking (assuming that I'm correct in assuming that the driver was expressing his/her irritation - if I'm not, then the overtaking was simply the driver being a plonker, as I've said), even tho' the assumed reaction was wrong.

I don't know how to make this any more simple...

Filtering like that is legal, its accepted practice, it is safe. For someone to react negatively informs us that they either do not understand the rules of the road or do not care for them, and they do they value others safety. If you do nothing wrong they you're not contributing to someone else being a complete git.

This is not one of those incidents with grey areas or mistakes on both sides. Theres a bad guy, and theres Magnatom. Mag has made mistakes on the road in the past (and been a good enough sport to put the footage online), but this is not one of them.

 

[Cab]

Wrong - filtering is both legal and accepted practice, as in what Magnatom did there. Even if it wasn't, it'd still be no justification whatsoever for that overtake.

And this often used style of defense for bad behaviour is simply tiresome. If a schoolchild were to say 'but I was in a bad mood' as defense for having beaten another kid, you'd still blame him entirely. Yet on our roads 'but he'd just...' is used regularly to excuse dangerous driving. It ain't acceptable, nor should we even enter into discussion on whether such might mitigate that kind of behaviour.

 

[magnatom]

The Peugot was turning minor to major, the driver had to give way by law not just moral one, it was a classic example of bad driving. Why should cyclist have to apologise for being on the road?

I certainly did have right of way. However, I also kept an eye on her and was able to slow down with plenty of time to spare. No need to emergency brake (my brakes are a little noisy in the dry anyway!). I think I had the situation covered despite what mr_hippo says. Does that seem reasonable Mr_hippo?

 

[Disgruntled Goat]

So DG show me where it says it is illegal.

The Highway code says you can only undertake when a vehicle isturning right or, if in a slow moving queue of traffic, the left hand lane of traffic moves off quicker than the right hand lane.

 

[magnatom]

So DG show me where it says it is illegal.

The Highway code says you can only undertake when a vehicle isturning right or, if in a slow moving queue of traffic, the left hand lane of traffic moves off quicker than the right hand lane.

The magic word is undertake. I did not undertake, I filtered. The traffic was completely stationary. This motorbike article references a court case with regards to filtering which the proof I think you required to show that filtering is legal.

http://www.motorbikestoday.com/news/Articles/filtering_law.htm

Concede DG?

 

[BentMikey]

Disgruntled Goat, there's a specific reference to motorcycles and filtering in rule 88 of the highway code.

 

[mr_hippo]

I certainly did have right of way. However, I also kept an eye on her and was able to slow down with plenty of time to spare. No need to emergency brake (my brakes are a little noisy in the dry anyway!). I think I had the situation covered despite what mr_hippo says. Does that seem reasonable Mr_hippo?

Yet, in the Peugot video the title states "In this clip you can hear my brakes, as I am forced to apply them". Why were you forced to apply them if it was not an emergency?

 

[BentMikey]

I'm confused, I really don't understand what point you're trying to make, mr_hippo.

Magnatom's video is just a video of a driver making a mistake, and him correcting for it. What more are you trying to read into it?

 

[magnatom]

Yet, in the Peugot video the title states "In this clip you can hear my brakes, as I am forced to apply them". Why were you forced to apply them if it was not an emergency?

Yes, I am forced to use them because she pulls into the space I would have occupied had I not applied my brakes. I anticipated it and reacted to it, and I was able to with plenty of space to spare, NOT because this lady's maneuver wasn't dangerous, but because I reacted correctly and timely.

Does that make sense?


If you pull out and force another driver to apply their brakes then you should not have pulled out IMO!

 

[Cab]

If you pull out and force another driver to apply their brakes then you should not have pulled out IMO!

And that isn't in any way a controversial view. I don't see what Hippo is getting at here.

 

[mr_hippo]

If someone is forced to break then it is an emergency.

 

[Cab]

If someone is forced to break then it is an emergency.

Your definition of 'emergency' is rather more lax than mine then.

I've had to pull emergency stops on the road, but they're rare because usually I've anticipated whats happening well in advance, and by the time whatever danger there is has materialised I've already taken sufficient action to turn the potential 'emergency' into an inconvenience or simply a non-event.

Mags stop there was not an emergency stop. Was more abrupt than is ideal, but it would have been an emergency stop had he not spotted the danger and already taken some action.

Its a mistake to pull out in front of another vehicle that has priority. No question there. That the person in control of the other vehicle has kept tight enough control and a good look out to avoid the risk posed does not make pulling out like that any more forgiveable.

So what happened here was that the motorist inconsiderately pulled, and by Mags two actions (one in anticipation and one when the car pulled out) he prevented an accident.

What don't you get?

 

[magnatom]

If someone is forced to break then it is an emergency.

Blimey! It's a wonder a lot more people don't have heart attacks or strokes, with all these emergencies happening all around us.

 

[BentMikey]

I suspect our definition of an emergency is closer to a panic stop, whilst mr_hippo's is much broader and includes braking to avoid another's mistakes, even quite gently.