Was this bus driver bad?

[col]

You are a midget and I claim my £5

The reason for the requirement for drivers to give as least as much room as they would a car when overtaking a bicycle is to allow the bike to wobble, or worse still, fall off. I'm over 6' and I'd like 6' of space to fall off into.

So would i,but the reality is,which i think you would agree,that they dont allow a cars width.Iv come to terms with the fact that vehicles pass too close,and accept it as part of town cycling.Now before you do a cab thing,and tell me that that means i do the same while driving my car,i dont.

 

[col]

You constantly contradict yourself.

YOU said:


So... You've asserted that three and a half feet is a decent gap. Then you're insisting now that it isn't. Oh, no, it is, you're happy to be overtaken that close...

Make up your mind. Is three and a half feet a safe gap to be overtaken, yes or no?

How does this constitute evidence,?You assume too much.



Hang on, you said:


So, you're always overtaken between 3'4" and 3'6"? You're being ridiculous now. In which of your statements have you told an untruth, that you're always overtaken by less than three and a half feet or that you're never overtaken by closer to three feet? Or is the ridiculous implication that theres a three inch overtaking window (the only way both statements can be true!) to be believed?



You have defined three and a half feet as safe. You've said that you pass at a safe distance. Excuse me for taking you at your word.



Yes, you've said precisely that. You said:


Are you retracting that statement now?



Define how far you pass the cyclist. You've said three and a half feet is a decent gap, you've said also that it isn't. You've been given evidence from the highway code about how far you should be passing; do you pass at, say, 6' or so?



If you repeat that statement in another post then, demosntrably, you're lying. You've said (I quote this now for the third time in this posting):




The evidence we have is the following:
(1) Your definition of a safe overtaking distance is erroneous.
(2) You are hesitant to say how closely you'll pass cyclists, and you have stated that the appropriate distance as advised by the highway code is not practical so you do overtake more closely than that (see text of your posting as quoted by Jaded).
(3) You falsely believe that it is often safe to pass cyclists without straying into another lane, whereas that is very, very rarely the case.
(4) You've contradicted yourself probably more than a dozen times now
(5) Despite information on how closely it is safe to allow yourself to be overtaken, or to overtake yourself, you choose to pretend ignorance on safe overtaking.

Ok cab,your doing a good job of making something out of nothing,again.so here is my summary on your damning list.

1. So half a lane is erroneous is it?
2.Im not hesitant,iv said how much space i leave.And iv never said the highway code is wrong.
3.I always stray into the oncoming lane,if i can,i also take the full oncoming lane.
4.thats you assuming again,and trying to make a point where there isnt one.
5.I dont pretend ignorance on overtaking,i do it as safely as i can,your assuming again.

The only thing i did wrong here,was say three and a half feet is ok,but it was a reality thing from your link,and iv accepted it in day to day cycling,even though it isnt a safe distance,and iv never said its safe.
Where do you get that im always overtaken between 3 ft 4inc and 3ft 6 inch?

 

[Cab]

I reckon the only thing Cab has proved beyond all doubt is the quality of his social skills on the internet.

You're rather sore that you were shown to be wrong, aren't you?

 

[Cab]

So would i,but the reality is,which i think you would agree,that they dont allow a cars width.Iv come to terms with the fact that vehicles pass too close,and accept it as part of town cycling.Now before you do a cab thing,and tell me that that means i do the same while driving my car,i dont.

Yet you've actually said that you pass closer than you should; you've poo-pood the idea that you would pass Jaded at a distance appropriate to how big he is, you have refused to elaborate on your actual overtaking distance, you've contradicted yourself and the advice on overtaking in the highway code.

Simple truth is you've said you overtake at a safe distance, but you've also contradicted yourself with stupid assertions about how far you pass someone.

Lets put numbers on it; I'm just shy of 6' tall, if I'm on a fairly upright bike, how much space do you pass me with, how much clearance from my right elbow, very minimum?

 

[BentMikey]

You're rather sore that you were shown to be wrong, aren't you?

Hehehehehehehe!!! Actually, I think it was you who was proved wrong, and a bunch of others piled into the debate confirming it. If you had been right, I'd have had no problem admitting it.

 

[col]

Yet you've actually said that you pass closer than you should; you've poo-pood the idea that you would pass Jaded at a distance appropriate to how big he is, you have refused to elaborate on your actual overtaking distance, you've contradicted yourself and the advice on overtaking in the highway code.

Simple truth is you've said you overtake at a safe distance, but you've also contradicted yourself with stupid assertions about how far you pass someone.

Lets put numbers on it; I'm just shy of 6' tall, if I'm on a fairly upright bike, how much space do you pass me with, how much clearance from my right elbow, very minimum?

Like iv said a couple of times now cab,i give at least half a lane,more if possible,and as for stupid assertions?your at it again arnt you.How manty times do you want to ask the same question?and then say im unsafe,poor or stupid.

 

[Cab]

Like iv said a couple of times now cab,i give at least half a lane,more if possible,and as for stupid assertions?your at it again arnt you.How manty times do you want to ask the same question?and then say im unsafe,poor or stupid.

And again you avoid answering. Minimum overtaking distance. Answer, please.

 

[Cab]

Hehehehehehehe!!! Actually, I think it was you who was proved wrong, and a bunch of others piled into the debate confirming it. If you had been right, I'd have had no problem admitting it.

You mean, I pointed out to the person who made some mistakes what those mistakes were, she accepted that, and you don't. And you're sore about it, hence your dire need to personalise the discussion because you've otherwise got no outlet to show your displeasure.

 

[BentMikey]

Gosh you take it too seriously, and I'm sorry! I was just poking a bit of gentle fun at you, nothing more, and I thought you'd see the funny side.

And no, you were wrong, and told to be so by several people. Let it go, it's a minor issue.

 

[col]

And again you avoid answering. Minimum overtaking distance. Answer, please.

You wont accept it will you,i dont take measurements,i do what i can at the time,and in my experience,i give a safe distance in passing in my car,and before you start again,its not as close as i sometimes get passed while on my bike.

 

[Cab]

Gosh you take it too seriously, and I'm sorry! I was just poking a bit of gentle fun at you, nothing more, and I thought you'd see the funny side.

And no, you were wrong, and told to be so by several people. Let it go, it's a minor issue.

And you'll note that other people affirmed that I was correct, and that those stating I was wrong (yourself included) completely failed to put forward any counter arguments at all. You'll also note that when the original poster started to fully engage in the discussion she agreed with me.

Really, leave it, your continued insistence that you're right after conclusively losing the debate looks like very tragic sour grapes.

 

[Cab]

You wont accept it will you,i dont take measurements,i do what i can at the time,and in my experience,i give a safe distance in passing in my car,and before you start again,its not as close as i sometimes get passed while on my bike.

Rubbish, you've got an idea what the distance is, you're just copping out from answering the question.

 

[col]

Rubbish, you've got an idea what the distance is, you're just copping out from answering the question.

Well i can see your point,but i dare not estimate,because if im a couple of inches wrong to what your ideal is,ill be called unsafe,poor ,stupid even,so ill let you assume,seeing as your pretty good at that,how wide half a lane may be.

 

[BentMikey]

*shakes head* and walks away. I'm sure you wouldn't act like that in real life mate.

 

[Cab]

Well i can see your point,but i dare not estimate,because if im a couple of inches wrong to what your ideal is,ill be called unsafe,poor ,stupid even,so ill let you assume,seeing as your pretty good at that,how wide half a lane may be.

Cop out. You've estimated distances elsewhere in this discussion, you've said that seven feet is 'unrealistic', you've said that you're comfortable with 'three and a half feet', you're bottling out of answering the question that would conclusively show that your overtaking isn't too close. Why?