This mornings idiot

[Cab]

I'm quite surprised at that if you've politely gestured that you'd like a word. Can you show us a video of that - I'd be interested to see.

Don't currently have a video of that because (a) I don't keep videos unless they're likely to provoke a discussion, ( I don't always take the camera with me, and (c) more often than not after stopping the traffic there I'll send an accusing glare at the usually quite regretful motorist, and move along the side of the now static traffic.

 

[Cab]

Perhaps its also worth mentioning, I've cycled that same road four times in the same direction since that incident, and not once has there been the slightest whiff of conflict there since. Happens sometimes, but its not a daily event there (not since the Stagecoach started having words with drivers).

 

[hackbike 6]

I've just cycled from Waterloo to Baker Street to Leyton via Oxford Circus and the 38 bus route.Alasit was an absolute dream.Just shows how boooooring my Mile End Road commute is.

(17 miles) Got lost on way to Baker Street.

 

[col]

No need for the rant at all,over reaction.If anything,a cyclist purposely stopping in the middle of the road to rant at a motorist,when there was no need,is just trouble waiting to happen,you had a third of the road but decided to make a big deal of it.
Why did you overtake the cyclist in front of you,or didnt you see the car coming ?

 

[hackbike 6]

I think its one oe those to learn from and get over.

 

[Cab]

No need for the rant at all,over reaction.If anything,a cyclist purposely stopping in the middle of the road to rant at a motorist,when there was no need,is just trouble waiting to happen,you had a third of the road but decided to make a big deal of it.
Why did you overtake the cyclist in front of you,or didnt you see the car coming ?

There was every need to stop there; the road space to pass only existed because of the position I took. Read the previous comments where that has been discussed. I invite you to ride that road regularly, see what happens if you don't claim the middle.

You'll also note that I didn't overtake any other cyclists.

 

[col]

There was every need to stop there; the road space to pass only existed because of the position I took. Read the previous comments where that has been discussed. I invite you to ride that road regularly, see what happens if you don't claim the middle.

You'll also note that I didn't overtake any other cyclists.

The car was already as far over as it could go,you didnt make any space,so why claim you did?I do note you didnt overtake anymore cyclists too,as there were no more at that point,i dont understand the relevance of your claim on this either?
The only danger there was the danger your putting yourself into doing this sort of thing,your going to pick on the wrong car one day to make your unneccesary point.Im all for having a go at a car for a dangerous maneouver when its called for,but not making one happen.

 

[Cab]

The car was already as far over as it could go,you didnt make any space,so why claim you did?

Its like the entire thread happened and you missed it.

The car was far over because I held my ground from the outset and held my hand out to stop him. He otherwise wouldn't have given so much space. The proof? The fact that I see this behaviour there, day in, day out, if you try to go down the side then the car will pass equidistant between you and the bollards, being then FAR too close. So you can passively accept someone breaking the law and passing too close (as happens there all of the time) or you can claim your road space. They're your choices; which do you pick?

I do note you didnt overtake anymore cyclists too,as there were no more at that point,i dont understand the relevance of your claim on this either?

So why did you ask:

Why did you overtake the cyclist in front of you,or didnt you see the car coming ?

I didn't overtake the other cyclist, why are you first asking why I did and then saying that you note I did not? What are you talking about?

The only danger there was the danger your putting yourself into doing this sort of thing,your going to pick on the wrong car one day to make your unneccesary point.Im all for having a go at a car for a dangerous maneouver when its called for,but not making one happen.

I can't really simplify this any further for you, and your recalcitrance to read earlier responses to this very question is quite tiresome. The motorist was acting dangerously, my experience every day tells me what happens if you go down the gap there. The only safe way to handle this situation is to create more road space by basically being in the way, its exactly the same principle as taking primary where theres a traffic island.

 

[Graham O]

When I'm going that way and there is no other vehicle behind me but oncoming bicycles, I slowly advance over the line, making eye contact with the oncoming bike, and if the other guy has seen me and moved over safely then I go, otherwise, I wait behind the line.

Its a really simple piece of road; you give way to oncoming traffic.

It seems to me that you are taking the "give way to oncoming traffic" to an extreme. If, by proceeding, you force the other road user to change his actions, then you are not giving way. However, if the other user is unimpeded in his journey, then there is no need to give way and you can proceed. I don't think that "give way to oncoming traffic" means that you cannot enter that stretch of road just because someone else is present on it. There is a subjective assessment of this based on experience, reading of the road etc and perhaps the car driver had seen you, had seen the sign and on the basis of the preceeding cyclist passing safely had concluded that you could also do so. Yes, you have a right to ride in primary, but is it worth an arguement over? I don't think so. You do. Who is right? Probably neither of us.

 

[col]

Its like the entire thread happened and you missed it.

The car was far over because I held my ground from the outset and held my hand out to stop him. He otherwise wouldn't have given so much space. The proof? The fact that I see this behaviour there, day in, day out, if you try to go down the side then the car will pass equidistant between you and the bollards, being then FAR too close. So you can passively accept someone breaking the law and passing too close (as happens there all of the time) or you can claim your road space. They're your choices; which do you pick?



So why did you ask:


I didn't overtake the other cyclist, why are you first asking why I did and then saying that you note I did not? What are you talking about?



I can't really simplify this any further for you, and your recalcitrance to read earlier responses to this very question is quite tiresome. The motorist was acting dangerously, my experience every day tells me what happens if you go down the gap there. The only safe way to handle this situation is to create more road space by basically being in the way, its exactly the same principle as taking primary where theres a traffic island.

Ok,carry on the way your going.

 

[Cab]

It seems to me that you are taking the "give way to oncoming traffic" to an extreme. If, by proceeding, you force the other road user to change his actions, then you are not giving way. However, if the other user is unimpeded in his journey, then there is no need to give way and you can proceed.

True so far...

I don't think that "give way to oncoming traffic" means that you cannot enter that stretch of road just because someone else is present on it.

Again, arguably true, but theres a clear stop line there and a very clear 'give way to oncoming traffic' sign; if the vehicle approaching is in the middle of the road then you don't enter, its that simple, because to do so requires the oncoming vehicle to change course.

There is a subjective assessment of this based on experience, reading of the road etc and perhaps the car driver had seen you, had seen the sign and on the basis of the preceeding cyclist passing safely had concluded that you could also do so. Yes, you have a right to ride in primary, but is it worth an arguement over? I don't think so. You do. Who is right? Probably neither of us.

Yes, its worth the argument there, and its worth repeating again that the cyclist in front got a heck of a lot more room than most do there, because there was another cyclist behind him (me) making the motorist slow down and move out of the way. The normal scenario is that a car would pass the cyclist far, far too closely there, equidistant from the bollards and the cyclist, at best, thus reducing clearance on either side of the cyclist to less than a foot (far too close).

If I approach in primary and hold my ground, then the car should not be coming into that zone. I've got priority, its my choice whether or not thats road space I want to share with an oncoming vehicle, not his. I choose not, because I see time and time again that to do otherwise is unsafe. If he enters my road space (the signs tell him that it is such) then he's in the wrong. Worth reminding him of that? I'll achieve nothing by not doing so.

 

[magnatom]

Guys,

I think at this stage, it doesn't matter if you agree with cab or not. The debate centres on two things:

1) Did cab have enough space? Some say yes, some may say no. I don't think anyone is going to change their mind, so there seems little point in further debate.

2) Should cab have said anything (particularly, what he did) to the driver. Some say things to drivers (I do) some don't. There are good arguments on both sides. Maybe cab should have let it pass, but to call it a rant is stretching things a tad. If you think that is a rant, best to hide in your bed all day . Again I don't think agreement will be reached. (there is a bit of ranting on here!)

I have been on the receiving end of 'rants' on here. Whilst some of it is probably valid, it can go on a bit too far. Lets let it lie, at least until I post my next video.

(No chance of that at the moment, I'm at home with bad lurgy )

 

[spindrift]

The car couldn't even see the cyclist when the car entered. the driver did nowt wrong, IMO.

 

[Cab]

The car couldn't even see the cyclist when the car entered. the driver did nowt wrong, IMO.

Of course he could see me, and the cyclist in front. I could see him, clearly, waiting behind the line, he was static as I approached the narrow section, and when he started moving I was clearly in the middle of the lane. If he didn't see the oncoming traffic, it could only be because he didn't look.

 

[Cab]

1) Did cab have enough space? Some say yes, some may say no. I don't think anyone is going to change their mind, so there seems little point in further debate.

When I have time I'll take some footage showing what happens if you scoot down the side of the oncoming vehicle, as many cyclists choose to do.