Muppet

[BentMikey]

How can you claim Magnatom initiated the argument when the car driver/passenger was the first to abuse? You can hear it quite clearly on the video, and that's what causes Magnatom to stop.

and my name isn't Steve

No shoot Sherlock.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

i don't want to join in with the congratulatory backslapping tbh.
you were riding too far out, you then chased the driver down to shout at him, and tbh are an embarrassment to the cycling community.

Why you feel the need to video drivers that you have provoked into overtaking you by riding slowly in the middle of the road (sorry primary position) and pretending that you are a victim is beyond me.

Learn how to ride defensively not offensively, and leave the camera at home

ride safe out there tom. You are an accident waiting to happen

I have to chip in here too.

Magnatom wasn't riding too far out, he was assuming a safe road position for that stretch of road, and when he comes on here I bet he will say that he would have assumed that positioning had that other cyclist been there or not.

I certainly would have positioned myeslf that far out in the lane in advance of the approaching hazard, for my own safety. The very fact that the cager beeped at Magnatom means that he was going to overtake on the blind crest, with oncoming traffic in the other lane.

The application of Cyclecraft's techniques is defensive cycling. You want Magnatom to cycle submissively.

Why do you think that a cyclist has less right to be using the road than a motorvehicle?

 

[Tetedelacourse]

(to quote Bentmikey, snippety snip)

Why do you think that a cyclist has less right to be using the road than a motorvehicle?

To be fair JRG, Steve has at no point put forward this position.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

To be fair JRG, Steve has at no point put forward this position.

Thats a fair comment, I'll rephrase myself to make more sense

I meant that SA's attitude suggests to me that they feel that bicycles are guests on motorists roads.

 

[Membrane]

He was in the correct place on the road; a fairly standard primary position.

I don't agree that there is a thing such as "the correct place on the road". Positioning is affected by many variables, road related, traffic related, the individual cyclist involved, weather related, etc. etc.

On the bridge itself (where the actual overtake took place) there was IMO no reason for Magnatom to be in the primary position (no risk of being door'ed (no parked cars there), the other cyclist was still too far ahead).

Doing something because "you have a right to" doesn't mean that you should or that it is a smart thing to do. There are pro's and cons to assuming a primary position. One thing is certain, if it hinders others it will provoke a negative reaction. To then complain about that is a bit rich IMO.

I facilitate others to make good progress by staying out of their way where I can. Only when my safety is actually at risk will I assume the primary road position (roundabouts, actual risk of being door'ed). There are a considerable number of people on the road who will take offence to cyclist hindering them (rightly or wrongly), the pragmatic way is to accept that, because "asserting your right", aka "teaching them a lesson" sooo does not work, it will do the exact opposite, it causes others to dislike cyclists even more.

Even John Franklin (the author of Cyclecraft) advocates using the secondary riding position when it is safe and reasonable to allow faster traffic to pass. The latter was the case in this situation.

 

[BentMikey]

I don't agree that there is a thing such as "the correct place on the road". Positioning is affected by many variables, road related, traffic related, the individual cyclist involved, weather related, etc. etc.

Wrong. There is such a thing, but as you say it is situation specific. In this instance, I think Magnatom's place was correct.

 

[Cab]

I don't agree that there is a thing such as "the correct place on the road". Positioning is affected by many variables, road related, traffic related, the individual cyclist involved, weather related, etc. etc.

True...

On the bridge itself (where the actual overtake took place) there was IMO no reason for Magnatom to be in the primary position (no risk of being door'ed (no parked cars there), the other cyclist was still too far ahead).

Untrue. The primary road position isn't the place to be only when there is a problem making that the best place, the primary position is the place to be unless there is a reason not to be.

Doing something because "you have a right to" doesn't mean that you should or that it is a smart thing to do. There are pro's and cons to assuming a primary position. One thing is certain, if it hinders others it will provoke a negative reaction. To then complain about that is a bit rich IMO.

Again, I don't agree. Yeah, if you hold primary for ages and don't give space to let someone pass when it is safe to do so you're being a git. But Mag didn't do that; there wasn't space to safely bass between him and the oncoming traffic, primary position tells the driver behind you 'no way, it ain't safe'. To complain about someone then risking themselves and oncoming traffic to get past the cyclist who has taken the correct road position for the road and conditions seems reasonable.

I facilitate others to make good progress by staying out of their way where I can. Only when my safety is actually at risk will I assume the primary road position (roundabouts, actual risk of being door'ed). There are a considerable number of people on the road who will take offence to cyclist hindering them (rightly or wrongly), the pragmatic way is to accept that, because "asserting your right", aka "teaching them a lesson" sooo does not work, it will do the exact opposite, it causes others to dislike cyclists even more.

Theres nothing wrong with picking a road position that lets people past if they are faster than you and it is safe to do so. I don't tink anyone here would be likely to disagree.#

Even John Franklin (the author of Cyclecraft) advocates using the secondary riding position when it is safe and reasonable to allow faster traffic to pass. The latter was the case in this situation.

And thats where your reasoning breaks down. I wouldn't consider secondary safe there, I'm not entirely sure why you do.

 

[spindrift]

It's a humpback bridge or hill, the driver was unsighted and took a silly overtake for no good reason.

 

[bonj2]

Wrong. There is such a thing, but as you say it is situation specific. In this instance, I think Magnatom's place was correct.

I think it's more appropriate to say there's no such thing as incorrect position - it's only incorrect if it's unsafe, causes unnecessary hindrance or is illegal. Anything else is correct imho.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

Membrane
On the bridge itself (where the actual overtake took place) there was IMO no reason for Magnatom to be in the primary position (no risk of being door'ed (no parked cars there), the other cyclist was still too far ahead).

I have to disagree here, the nature of the bridge itself was the hazard which warrented primary. If the driver were to have overtaken on it, he would have been forced to squeeze Magnatom as the video shows 3 cars crest the bridge before Magnatom clears it himself.

Unfortunately Mr Muppet couldn't wait to get past.

I have thought a lot about why drivers feel that cyclists are in the way, and have come to the conclusion that it is basically an extension of the motorway effect - whereby the brain adapts to processing what what the eyes are seeing at a certain speed by narrowing the picture profile (the active part of the drivers vision, what they react to), basically a tunnel vision effect.

When the vehicle suddenly slows down the brain is not able to instantly widen the picture profile, it needs to work out how much more information it can take it before doing it. This leads to the sense that the vehicle is travelling much slower that it actually is, due to the picture profile being too narrow. Too much information is excluded from anaylsis, in a way it is giving the brain too long to look at the environment, creating a distorted sense of speed as not enough changes / is happening.

I believe this to be the primary reason that drivers get so upset when they have to wait behind a cyclist, or even a much slower driver. Below I have put together a very rough example of how crazy it is to get so aggrivated.

In Magnatom's clip the car would have been behind him for a maximum of 32 seconds until it was back in the lane infront of Magnatom (basically when he finishes saying "A$$hole").

32 seconds.

That is 1.19% of the average car commute time in the UK* spent at a slightly lower speed.

A big enough deal to beep? A big enough deal to shout abuse about? A big enough deal to endager someone's life?

I think not.


_______________________

* Average commute time in the UK in 2003 was 45mins


Source

BBC, "UK commute 'longest in Europe'", 2003, [Online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3085647.stm

 

[bonj2]

I think regardless of whether magnatom's road positioning infuriated the driver, this is preferential to him not noticing him. Even though he was raging and beeping, he was focussing on magnatom. I know I for one would rather be beeped than be overtaken haphazardly, get knocked off and run the risk of ending up handicapped, all because some goon was unaware of my position because I hadn't commanded enough attention.

 

[Membrane]

The primary road position isn't the place to be only when there is a problem making that the best place, the primary position is the place to be unless there is a reason not to be.

That is repeating some rule, but you provide no argumentation as to why you believe that to be true.

Yeah, if you hold primary for ages and don't give space to let someone pass when it is safe to do so you're being a git.

As I said this was the case at the point where the conflict occured (on the bridge): no parked cars, no junctions, good road surface, cyclist to be overtaken still too far ahead.

But Mag didn't do that; there wasn't space to safely bass between him and the oncoming traffic

I'm not defending the dangerous overtake by the motorist, I'm saying that when you take a primary position, some people will squeeze by you, in some cases to "teach the cyclist a lesson". Assuming the primary position should therefore be minimized to situations where there is a real danger to the cyclist if he were in the secondary position.

Primary position tells the driver behind you 'no way, it ain't safe'.

That way of thinking is part of the "I'll teach them road manners" attitude that in practice only results in an increase in adverserial behaviour on the roads. There are a fair number of muppets on the road, they won't be "taught manners or good sense" by other road users, human nature just doesn't work like that.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

Membrane

Originally Posted by Cab
The primary road position isn't the place to be only when there is a problem making that the best place, the primary position is the place to be unless there is a reason not to be.

That is repeating some rule, but you provide no argumentation as to why you believe that to be true.

Because it is the most visible, with the most room to manover.

 

[magnatom]

I'm not at work today so Im only passing by the computer. Seems things have moved on a bit!

Suffice it to say I always take the primary position at that hill (I am going about 18mph by the way). I have had too many other stupid overtaking manouvers at this hill not to take the primary position. Look at my other videos.

I also agree that the primary position argument wasn't the best. I didn't think he was going to say anything so he caught me out a little. I have used a better one (I saw written elsewhere)

Me: Have you passed your test?
Driver: Of course I have you.....
Me: would you overtake me like that on your test?
Driver: errrrr

Worked a treat when I used it (I might have it on video somewhere!). Thats the one I should have used here.

 

[palinurus]

It was a great example of how vehicles percieve cyclists, as some thing that is just holding them up.I wonder if he would have commented if it was an electric milk float over taking?I doubt it.

I doubt it too, although I did witness a driver recently honking one of those street sweeper things which had held him up for a couple hundred yards.