Rule no. 1

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Origamist

Legendary Member
BM, you’ve lost me. You accuse me of being “wrong” but don’t qualify the charge.

Do you mean my opinion on 4ft usually being sufficient when you pass a parked vehicle (which I have consistently maintained and which my previous posts attest to – see the links in post 74)?

Or do you think I am wrong about the passing distance given to the Blue van? As I’ve said, I think it’s around the 3ft mark, it could be more though (ie I could be WRONG), say 3 and half foot, it might even be almost 4ft – but I’m unconvinced by that figure (BTW, I agree with Jon that the lane looks about 12-13ft wide, but we’re all guestimating passing distances and it is indeed a bit silly). However, 3-4ft is still in the door zone and that is what is important, don’t you see?

Where the discussion is not silly is that it has made Jon consider his passing distances (and possibly others), which is part of the reason for examining cycling cam films - they can used as an educational tool for other cyclists.

Finally, I enjoy Jon’s vids and posts - he argues his case cogently and with courtesy. If Jon wants to drop-kick me out of the discussion he only needs to say he checked the van, saw no occupants and was therefore happy to cycle in the door zone;)
 

jonredhornet

Active Member
Origamist said:
B
Where the discussion is not silly is that it has made Jon consider his passing distances (and possibly others), which is part of the reason for examining cycling cam films - they can used an educational tool for other cyclists.


I couldn't agree more. When I'm asked by people in the 'real world' why I wear a cam I usually say I'm a member of an online cycling forum and issues such as safety are often analysed and discussed. I'm not being completely honest when I say that though as I did start making vids before I joined the forum, although I was part of the YouTube cycling community and often discussed things with guys like Downfader and Thomas.

When people happen upon the forum they'll see lots of constructive threads with people chastising red light jumping, discussing overtaking lorries / buses on the left, cycling in secondary vs primary etc. If anything it raises peoples consciousness to the problems we all face and helps people to decide what is the safest action to take in a situation. All good in my book xx(
 

Rhythm Thief

Legendary Member
Location
Ross on Wye
And what the hell's the point in riding a bike if you have to sit in traffic queues with all the cars? Of course "cue jumpin" isn't wrong, and the outside is the safest place to do it.
 

Norm

Guest
BentMikey said:
Why don't you explain what you mean - in specifics in terms of this video.
I can only imagine that he's talking about something like this.

I winced at the video, mainly because my queue jumping is mostly done under power and some of those gaps were narrowed than I'd have tried, but I would always be looking for a chance to get past. (Even if it involved the pavement :blush: ;) )
 
You were wrong and BM right again?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
Ben Lovejoy said:
Right. Meantime, back in the real world ...

(I don't have time to dig into the legislation, but either way the risks of being taken out in that situation are pretty high, especially when you include the likelihood of people getting bored of sitting in traffic and deciding to use one of those drives to do a U-turn and try another route.

Bizarre way to deflect a logical argument. :laugh: So you're saying the car driver overtook illegally then? :welcome:
 
Top Bottom