# Was this cyclist bad?



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Have a look at this video: 

The chap makes two mistakes. One which is naughty and really gets him nowhere (this type of RLJing has been described elsewhere on the forum) and another potentially potential fatal mistake.

What do you think?


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Hold on. There appears to be a problem with the video. I'll get it sorted.....



Edit: working now!!


----------



## mrben (18 Dec 2007)

Ouch - that's Anniesland cross isn't it? Nasty junction in a car, let alone RLJing on a bike.


----------



## JamesAC (18 Dec 2007)

No it's not!!


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

Technically he stopped at the red light.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

JamesAC said:


> No it's not!!



No it's not what? It is Anniesland Cross and the video is working....

MrBen, can you spot the more serious mistake though?


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> Technically he stopped at the red light.



No he didn't. He stopped because the traffic was so busy that he couldn't get across. The red light was a good few metres back. 

Was he any safer than me though?


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

What is the serious mistake?

The motorist saw him fine.Ok probably best to check both ways before he pulls off in case of a RLJing motorist.He wasn't in any hurry and you said "Oh weel oil overtake 'im anyway".Didn't look like he was in any hurry.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> What is the serious mistake?
> 
> The motorist saw him fine.Ok probably best to check both ways before he pulls off in case of a RLJing motorist.He wasn't in any hurry and you said "Oh weel oil overtake 'im anyway".Didn't look like he was in any hurry.



The RLJ was not serious from a road safety point of view (although it does provide the RLJ excuse to drivers etc). 

Has no-one spotted it yet Just wondering if anyone else will see it. I must admit I didn't at the time.....


----------



## Molecule Man (18 Dec 2007)

Was the lorry signalling left?


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> No he didn't. He stopped because the traffic was so busy that he couldn't get across. The red light was a good few metres back.
> 
> Was he any safer than me though?



I tend to do the same.There are a set of lights with PC World (going towards London) across the road at Mile End and I pull up to stop cars doing a left on me.Although once a car did exactly this after confusing me and blowing his horn like mad.

Are you saying in all the years I have stopped slightly further than the cars that it has been my intention to jump the lights?

It didn't actually look like he was making any effort to jump the lights.

IMHO.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Molecule Man said:


> Was the lorry signalling left?



You are on the right track! No it wasn't but the potential is always there.....


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

Did you notice when the lights changed he pulled off so there must be another set of lights too look at.(or perhaps he was watching the other lights go back to red)


Also why did the lorry pull out suddenly?


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> I tend to do the same.There are a set of lights with PC World (going towards London) across the road at Mile End and I pull up to stop cars doing a left on me.Although once a car did exactly this after confusing me and blowing his horn like mad.
> 
> Are you saying in all the years I have stopped slightly further than the cars that it has been my intention to jump the lights?
> 
> ...




By crossing the line (especially that far!) he had already jumped the lights. The point I am trying to make is that there was no point in doing this. I had filtered and stopped one car back. I felt very safe here and was within the law. This chap was no safer, but had jumped the lights.

Sure it isn't the worst crime, but an unnecessary misdemeanor none the less.


----------



## Molecule Man (18 Dec 2007)

I'm not an advocate of RLJing and I (almost) never do it myself. The RLJing bit here looked fairly mild, he seemed to know the junction well enough to know when the lights had changed in his favour. I suppose he was effectively carving out his own ASL.


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

What helmet cam do you use?


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> Did you notice when the lights changed he pulled off so there must be another set of lights too look at.(or perhaps he was watching the other lights go back to red)
> 
> 
> Also why did the lorry pull out suddenly?




There are no lights that you can see from there. I assume that he was watching the flow of traffic.

I think the lorry driver changed his mind where he wanted to go.


----------



## palinurus (18 Dec 2007)

He undertakes the red truck, which- some time after- moves off into the left lane. Not something that might've been easily anticipated if he'd been alongside at the time.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Molecule Man said:


> I'm not an advocate of RLJing and I (almost) never do it myself. The RLJing bit here looked fairly mild, he seemed to know the junction well enough to know when the lights had changed in his favour. I suppose he was effectively carving out his own ASL.



I agree that it is mild, but it is completely unnecessary here, so why do it? Just curious what others think about this.


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

I dont really see a problem with it.It isn't actually blatant RLJing of which I see daily.(Which means going straight through the lights without stopping)Half the time there are cars in the little cycling boxes anyway or they have pulled up too far.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

palinurus said:


> He undertakes the red truck, which- some time after- moves off into the left lane. Not something that might've been easily anticipated.



In a nutshell. It's one reason why I think undertaking can be very dangerous. The lorry looked as if it was going straight on. Lorry driver thinks, oh wait a minute I'm going to go left here instead and pulls across. 

What would have happened here if he didn't see a cyclist coming up the left, either by not looking correctly, or if the cyclist happened to be in a blind spot at the time?

I think if the cyclist had come down there a little later there could have been a serious accident. IMO this justifies my view of filtering down the right wherever possible.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> What helmet cam do you use?



See here http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5009

Second post down.


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

Thanks.

You actually do know or at least I do that overtaking in a lorries blind spot that you have to be ready for the unexpected and that applies to tithead car drivers who drop off passengers who suddenly swing their car doors open or the ped who decides to cross between traffic.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> Thanks.
> 
> You actually do know or at least I do that overtaking in a lorries blind spot that you have to be ready for the unexpected and that applies to tithead car drivers who drop off passengers who suddenly swing their car doors open or the ped who decides to cross in traffic.



I'm sure you do cycle safely, but I have my doubts about this chap and a lot of other cyclists. I like posting videos like this because it illustrates a problem that not everyone might have expected. Who knows, a video like this one might save a life one day.....


----------



## mrben (18 Dec 2007)

It's very difficult to tell the cyclists intention here - to me it looks like, traffic permitting, he would've done a "full" RLJ, but that's conjecture.


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

It looks like a dangerous junction to jump really.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

> He undertood an artic. The same artic then moved lanes while the lights were still red. He's fortunate the driver didn't do the manouvre when the bike was alongside, or else he could have been another statistic.
> 
> It just shows that "it was ok as the lights were red and the truck wasn't moving" isn't a valid excuse.



Indeed. It scares me to think how easily I could have been a witness at a fatal. I just hope the chap in the video stumbles across this video before the next time.....


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

mrben said:


> It's very difficult to tell the cyclists intention here - to me it looks like, traffic permitting, he would've done a "full" RLJ, but that's conjecture.




That was my feeling. This is a busy junction and best treated with caution (and cycled through as quickly as possible, when safe to do so).


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

I see worse than that out there.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> I see worse than that out there.



Absolutely, but wouldn't you agree that this chap was lucky? And wouldn't you also agree that it is worth me posting this even if there is just a small chance that it stops someone getting crushed in the future?


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Absolutely, but wouldn't you agree that this chap was lucky? And wouldn't you also agree that it is worth me posting this even if there is just a small chance that it stops someone getting crushed in the future?




Hard to say really.Thats why I say you need your wits about you.Im sure i've done some dodgy overtakes/undertakes in the past.You know when you are out there you have to be alert.When you go past a lorry on the inside you can check his mirror and do a risk assessment.Actually thinking about it though sometimes im quite comfortable hanging back behind a lorry.Southwark bridge left turn is a good example of this so probably yes.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

Red light jumping. Pretty stupid. Undertaking that big red lorry looked pretty dumb too. Then he's taken up a road position riding very nearly on the outer one of the two yellow lines.

'Idiot' would be too strong a term for him. Strikes me as completely lacking in good roadcraft though.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Absolutely, but wouldn't you agree that this chap was lucky? And wouldn't you also agree that it is worth me posting this even if there is just a small chance that it stops someone getting crushed in the future?



Its a good example of one of the ways how not to handle such a junction.


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

Shame he's not here to defend himself.


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

dnftt

Shhhh...you ain't seen me right? 

T x


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Red light jumping. Pretty stupid. Undertaking that big red lorry looked pretty dumb too. Then he's taken up a road position riding very nearly on the outer one of the two yellow lines.
> 
> 'Idiot' would be too strong a term for him. Strikes me as completely lacking in good roadcraft though.




Yes I haven't mentioned his general road positioning but it was pretty poor. I didn't feel there was any point in mentioning any of this to him at the time as I had a feeling he wouldn't listen. You will know from previous threads that I am generally not one to hold back!


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Yes I haven't mentioned his general road positioning but it was pretty poor. I didn't feel there was any point in mentioning any of this to him at the time as I had a feeling he wouldn't listen. You will know from previous threads that I am generally not one to hold back!



Yes we know.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

Actually, no, I've looked again. Idiot wouldn't be too strong a term for him.


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

I *will *remember this thread when you are all lying in bed and I am commuting to/from work.


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

What I find most incredible is other cyclists, generally RLJs, who huff puff and muscle past me when I'm already in primary position and in the ASL bike box at traffic lights, just to get an advance on the traffic.
Most are lucky to get out in front before the lights change and are often not in position before the traffic, including me, is right behind them and trying to get past. It's a flaming nusiance I tell you!!! 

I think the cyclist in this instance Mag believes he's safer in that more advanced position and that he didn't have much to fear from the truck as it probably wasn't indicating.
There is no reason to suppose the truck would not have indicated before he made the change to the left hand lane and in doing so would not have made allowences for the cyclist, who I might add was clear of everyone long before the truck turned. I think the truck turned so he wouldn't get stuck behind the bike! LOL.

T x


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

*It's a flaming nusiance I tell you!!!


*I can see that and generally,(I think) I try not to push my way in front of another cyclist depending on the circumstances.Sometimes cyclists tend to stop in poor positions.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

I nearly 'slapped' yet another cyclist yesterday. Its the new layout of the road in front of John Lewis, you get to the stop box, wait in it, signalling left, someone comes straight out through the stop box, through the red light, usually turning right (although yesterday it was left) straight through my outstretched arm. 

Might have to start wearing gauntlets


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

Looks like after 30* years of cycling im a bad cyclist then.


*Sorry 1976.


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

Hey, I anticipate left hooks no matter what the vehicle, but a truck that close to a junction I wouldn't undertake, unless a car behind me wanting the left lane forced me into that position.

To clarify, I think the cyclist having already passed the truck was fairly safe in this instance.

T x


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

I try and anticipate left hooks.This board has made me become more aware how they are caused and how to prevent them.


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Have a look at this video:
> 
> The chap makes two mistakes. One which is naughty and really gets him nowhere (this type of RLJing has been described elsewhere on the forum) and another potentially potential fatal mistake.
> 
> What do you think?




I see that happen quite a lot, they completely miss the stop line and go way ahead of the red light. I've even seen some lemming cyclists risk dodging through the traffic that has the green light, and for what? To save about 10 seconds or something. Mind you I've seen motor vehicles do it too, which is more dodgey.
At least this one didn't act like a lemming though and did stop. He'd have been a fool to try and dodge between all that lot that came through them lights!!


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> I see that happen quite a lot, they completely miss the stop line and go way ahead of the red light. I've even seen some lemming cyclists risk dodging through the traffic that has the green light, and for what? To save about 10 seconds or something. Mind you I've seen motor vehicles do it too, which is more dodgey.
> At least this one didn't act like a lemming though and did stop. He'd have been a fool to try and dodge between all that lot that came through them lights!!



It is a very busy junction. I actually quite enjoy negotiating it. I've attached a picture of the junction from google earth. My challenge for anyone who doesn't know this junction is to work out how you turn right (west) if you approach the junction from the south! This one catches a lot out!!

There are also two different ways to turn left!


----------



## mrben (18 Dec 2007)

> Are you allowed to turn right, or do you have to go left first and then around?



Winnah!


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> It is a very busy junction. I actually quite enjoy negotiating it. I've attached a picture of the junction from google earth. My challenge for anyone who doesn't know this junction is to work out how you turn right (west) if you approach the junction from the south! This one catches a lot out!!
> 
> There are also two different ways to turn left!



Do you turn right up a slip road before the junction??


----------



## LOGAN 5 (18 Dec 2007)

Technically he jumped the lights but he didn't go across the junction. This is a common sight in London and personally I don't think it's wrong - although the police do as they stop cyclists who do this. At least he was visible for all those cars in the queue at the lights and as somebody else mentioned it is like carving your own ASL. 

Magnatom, you are obviously a faster cyclist than this individual and I think this sometimes determines positioning. Not all cyclists are fast/fit/confident/on a quick bike and able to take the primary position which everybody goes on about on this forum. It's very noticeable for me when I am on my road bike on the weekends and how I can more easily maintain my road position unlike my experience with impatient and often aggressive London drivers during commuting hours on my slow bike and also now in the dark.

There's a dreadful "race track" at Vauxhall Cross going east and the best and safest way is to join a group of already gathered cyclists ahead of the stop line and go like hell with them across the junction. I reluctantly take this position if I'm alone as I ride a very slow bike in London and it's more tricky to dominate ones lane.

Agree though that undertaking even a stationary lorry with a lane to its left was foolish. Only this morning I hung back in a bus lane to wait for a refuse lorry to trickle pass a left hand turning and for it to actually stop in the queue of traffic before proceeding down the bus lane. 

Saw a cyclists in dark clothing and a poor back light last night squeeze himself between a traffic island with a build out and a moving lorry - if he'd put his hand out he could have touched the lorry he was that close. I just cringed watching him.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

mrben said:


> Winnah!





Yes you need to go left then across a few lanes to get to the far lane to allow you to then proceed west. It is signposted but you still have to be in the right lane all the way round which can take a while to get used to!


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Logan 5, I certainly don't have a fast bike! It's a ridgeback cyclone, upgraded a fair bit with lots of extra stuff on it like mudguards, bike lock, 3 lights, attachment for child seat, big thick marathon plus tyres. It isn't designed for speed, but I'll grant you I am one very fit bloke .

Seriously I see your point, but by taking the far left he is in a dangerous position. Yes by being in the middle he would hold more traffic up, although at this particular junction they are leaving a queue to join an even longer queue so it wouldn't make much difference. However, even if he annoyed people behind him he would be safer, which is what really matters. Once past the junction he could either take the route I take, that takes you off the road (which incidentally is what he did) or move over to the secondary position and let the traffic sort itself out.

Of course another solution is to take a different route. There is an argument that if you can't ride safely on a particular route, you shouldn't be there at all. There are alternatives, although a little longer of course.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

LOGAN 5 said:


> Technically he jumped the lights but he didn't go across the junction. This is a common sight in London and personally I don't think it's wrong - although the police do as they stop cyclists who do this. At least he was visible for all those cars in the queue at the lights and as somebody else mentioned it is like carving your own ASL.



Thing is, theres another cyclist already waiting legally. It just seems quite dreadful to go straight past another cyclist and pick an illegal place to wait. Its bad enough antagonising the motorists that way, it just seems even more obviously unbreasonable to do that when theres another cyclist already at the junction.

And like it or lump it, its the law too. If we're seen constantly breaking the law (and that kind of thing is very visible) then we'll continue to be portrayed as law-breakers unworthy of road space.



> Magnatom, you are obviously a faster cyclist than this individual and I think this sometimes determines positioning. Not all cyclists are fast/fit/confident/on a quick bike and able to take the primary position which everybody goes on about on this forum. It's very noticeable for me when I am on my road bike on the weekends and how I can more easily maintain my road position unlike my experience with impatient and often aggressive London drivers during commuting hours on my slow bike and also now in the dark.



You're right of course that the position you take on the road depends on what the road conditions are, how much traffic there is, how fast the traffic is, and not least of all how well you think you can get away. But I'd urge you, even if you think you can't accelerate very quickly from a junction, to try to be assertive. I'm not saying bob about slowly in traffic, I'm saying that even if you're not desperately fast you're still part of the traffic, and you're safest where you're most visible and where passing traffic has to actually overtake you, rather than skim past close and fast.

And at the end of the day, an assertive cyclist in traffic might get a bit more lip, a few more honks, but he's safer than that bloke you've just seen in Magnatoms video, wobbling along on the yellow line.


----------



## Bokonon (18 Dec 2007)

I really don't see the point of pushing to the front of traffic queues, you are going to have to stop anyway and it is often easier to start within the queue of traffic (which often moves away more slowly further back) than be bullied by fast accelerating cars at the front of the queue - ASLs can encourage poor behaviour. If it is a very long queue that is going to take several changes of the lights to clear then I would move nearer the front, if safe to do so, but then stop within the queuing traffic in a similar position to that taken by magnatom in the video. I wouldn't have bothered passing the lorry in that instance though, for a number of reasons.

The other cyclist did look like he would have gone straight over the junction if the cross traffic hadn't been there to stop him. It appears to be quite a long junction, he may have felt he was more able to clear the junction safely within the green phase of the lights by starting from his advanced position. He still shouldn't have undertaken the lorry, whatever the circumstances.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Bokonon said:


> I wouldn't have bothered passing the lorry in that instance though, for a number of reasons.




I did consider sitting behind the lorry, and I normally would, but on this occasion the cars behind it were quite tightly packed, the lights had only just gone red and the right hand lane was free allowing me to see that there was a gap in front of the lorry. You will notice when I stop I look directly up at the driver to make sure he has seen me. I look again just as I catch sight of the cyclist (my eyes move further than the camera suggests!!).


----------



## BentMikey (18 Dec 2007)

I spotted that it was undertaking the lorry right away! I don't understand why the cyclist felt any need to go over the stop line, it brings him no benefit and potentially makes things worse if he can't see the lights change, as well as irritating drivers.

Logan, I used to think like you, until I was forced to ride at the back of a snake "protecting" other riders pretending to be trainees. It's quite easy to own some road space even if you're riding much slower than you're used to.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I spotted that it was undertaking the lorry right away!



A gold star for BentMikey!


----------



## Tynan (18 Dec 2007)

surely that truck is stopped with a car in front of it and if it does pull left it does so from a standing start with an escape route available for the bike?

I'll roll forward at lights but not that far

Lary junction


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2007)

What about the view that he did nothing wrong:

He undertook a stationery truck at a left filter. Any vehicle moving out to filter left should've looked in his mirror, otherwise he would potentially have hit another vehicle or a ped or a cyclist. As Tynan says, the cyclist had room to move left, plus how do you know he hadn't anticipated such a manouevre. In fact the truck waited until he'd passed ergo he'd seen him - prove otherwise.

He then moves further ahead of the traffic through the red light. As far as I'm concerned nothing wrong with that. It puts him slightly ahead of the cars in a good position to be seen and gives him space to get going. My only negative view on this is that he goes too far and potentially disturbs car drivers going across the junction who may think he might not stop.

He then proceeds away at a position from the kerb which he obviously finds comfortable. Again I would be further away but that's me.

Sorry the only thing in the video that annoyed me was your sanctimonious mutterings and air of superiority.

_Edit: Magnatom I apologise for that last comment. That was rude and uncalled for, written when I was feeling grouchy._


----------



## BentMikey (18 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> Sorry the only thing in the video that annoyed me was your sanctimonious mutterings and air of superiority.



Surely that says more about your perceptions than it does about Magnatom? I didn't see any sanctimonious anything.


----------



## gbb (18 Dec 2007)

Depending on the circumstances of the day, ive been known in the past to advance beyond the reds like the guy in the video (not that far forward BTW)
Why....
I believe the most dangerous time in a situation like that is wobbling as you pull away. If you do get a wobble, youve also got all and sundry pulling away at the same time...it can be bl00dy dangerous and scary to a less experienced cyclist. 
I worked on the principle i'd get some speed up BEFORE the advancing hordes of cars got in my way...i felt safer doing that.

Its easy to forget...not all cyclists are as proficient, experienced or confident as some of us are.


The boots on the other foot now...like you Magnatom, i'd assume your position and i have the strength and confidence to deal with the traffic.

Undertaking the lorry ??? I'd probably do that myself.
The lights ahead are red...he shouldnt be going anywhere. Hes in the 'straight ahead' lane and IF hes not signalling to turn left, i'd assume hes waiting like everyone else....and 99.9% of the time. i'd be right.

The other 0.1 % of the time...i'd be using eyes, experience and care while undertaking him...not just blindly ploughing ahead with gay abandon.
We dont know he (the cyclist in your footage) may be using the same care and caution.

Wrong behaviour...of course it is. But whos perfect in EVERY aspect of life ?

I work on the principle that i dont (or try not to) p1ss people off, dont behave overtly dangerously and respect other road users.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Dec 2007)

gbb said:


> I believe the most dangerous time in a situation like that is wobbling as you pull away. If you do get a wobble, youve also got all and sundry pulling away at the same time...it can be bl00dy dangerous and scary to a less experienced cyclist.
> I worked on the principle i'd get some speed up BEFORE the advancing hordes of cars got in my way...i felt safer doing that.



Wobbling shouldn't be a problem, just own the lane across junctions. No cyclist should be riding tight to the left like that.




gbb said:


> Undertaking the lorry ??? ... The other 0.1 % of the time...



That's the 0.1% of the time that causes the most cyclist deaths?


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2007)

> The point is very simple. The cyclist put himself in potentially far more danger than Mag did (who was in a safe position in the traffic), and what did he gain from it? Nothing.



Did he? What if he is not confident enought to take the same position, doesn't have the speed, doesn't have the bike control. Where's his best position then; in a car? Sorry I don't think the point is very simple. 

I don't normally come in on these threads because I don't commute anymore but really: Did he do anything wrong, or let me phrase it another way, did he do something which was wrong for him not for you?

BentMikey: I don't think there's anything wrong with my perceptions, I see it as 'I' saw it, ergo our perceptions are different.


----------



## gbb (18 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Wobbling shouldn't be a problem, just own the lane across junctions. No cyclist should be riding tight to the left like that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats the point...wobbling shouldnt be a problem for an experienced and confident cyclist...how do we know if he meets either of those criteria ?
Is this his way of dealing with what he sees as a potentialy dangerous situation ?

0.1% of the time ?....take any situation on a bike...anywhere...and something can go wrong...by your hands or someone elses. 

Dont get me wrong, you are quite right to encourage 'correct' behaviour on the bike...i'd hope the guy in question will learn. 
Undertaking the lorry ? Suppose it were a car ? Suppose it made that turn..and still didnt see you. You would potentially still be on the recieving end of hospital food.
Are you never going to undertake anything ?
Proceed with care and caution...or youre never going to get anywhere.

But thats my opinion....yours is correct..mine is realistic, based on experience and confidence.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Dec 2007)

Crackle, it seems that in this case the cyclist did have enough speed and control to ride properly, going by the riding you see in Magnatom's video. The cyclist just chose to ride with poor strategy.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Dec 2007)

gbb, your point of doing that with a car and likely also leading to hospital is wrong as that would be significantly less risky than with a lorry, though you are right in that undertaking is usually the less safe option. Lorrys are what kill the most cyclists of all.

Are you saying my and magnatom's views are correct, but unrealistic and not based on experience? Because that would also be incorrect. It's the work of really experienced and expert cyclists that lead to proper practice.


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> It seems that in this case the cyclist did have enough speed and control to ride properly, going by the riding you see in Magnatom's video. The cyclist just chose to ride with poor strategy.



OK. I may be accused of being pedantic here. 

The original question was 'was this cyclist bad' - my answer; No. 

Change the question. Could he have done it better? Yes. 

Did he do anything dangerous - We can't tell without assuming he hadn't considered what the lorry might do. We all agree he went way too far past the stop sign but perhaps that's his way of dealing with that junction. He could have done a lot worse. I wouldn't on those grounds say his positioning was bad, I've chosen similiar options myself in the past, I don't ride to a prescription.


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2007)

> Being unconfident is a ridiculous excuse



OK, badly phrased. Let me say that he chose that method to cross the junction 'cause it works for him.



> The cyclist could have stayed behind the truck, for a start.



Maybe; I can't answer that without knowing the junction and knowing how long the lights had been on red as I approached. If he had stayed at the stop line, I would agree he should not have gone past the truck. He didn't stay at the stop but went some way past and therefore, in my view, mitigated any danger from the truck passing him again at a wide junction



> > Did he do something wrong, or did he take a more dangerous option than he needed to?
> > Yes on both counts.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gbb (18 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> gbb, your point of doing that with a car and likely also leading to hospital is wrong as that would be significantly less risky than with a lorry, though you are right in that undertaking is usually the less safe option. Lorrys are what kill the most cyclists of all.
> 
> Are you saying my and magnatom's views are correct, but unrealistic and not based on experience?  Because that would also be incorrect. It's the work of really experienced and expert cyclists that lead to proper practice.[/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2007)

> Ok. So it worked this time. Safe cycling is about risk assessment. Obviously a cyclist cannot predict the time he's going to get hit by a lorry. But he can learn about the signs, and the possible actions of other road users. We can see from the video that the lorry couuld move left at any time, as it's precisely what he did. If there's any chance of him doing that at all, then the cyclist shouldn't ride up the inside of him.



I take this point but equally the cyclist could have been filtering left in the outside filter lane and the lorry still have moved over into him and I also still say you can't tell from that whether the cyclist had eyeballed the driver in the mirror or seen another indication of what he might do. 

Now if we go on to examine what he did next at the junction and with his riding position, then we may 'assume' that his skills may not have been good enough to anticipate the lorry manouevre and he was just lucky. That would be a guess though.




> You're thinking too far ahead. Because you know that he got past the truck without it turning. you need to go back a step.



I'm thinking that if I'd chosen to go up the inside of the lorry and ahead at the junction I wouldn't have done it without knowing I had time to get past, assuming I judged it safe.




> So you really don't think that he had a safer option?


you know I reallly don't know the answer to that. I was addressing the original question about him being a bad cyclist, which I answered above. As for safer, they're the kind of decisions you make of the moment. Make the right decision in the wrong way and it comes out wrong. Make the wrong decision with confidence and it turns out OK. He made it through the jct as he probably does every week so what is safe?


----------



## Crackle (18 Dec 2007)

I retract my rather grouchy statement about Magnatom being sanctamonious and superior and apologise for it, written when I was feeling grumpy.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> I take this point but equally the cyclist could have been filtering left in the outside filter lane and the lorry still have moved over into him and I also still say you can't tell from that whether the cyclist had eyeballed the driver in the mirror or seen another indication of what he might do.



I agree with you on this point; it is possible that the driver waved him through. The lorry driver may have indicated, looked, saw the cyclist, and waved the cyclist to come past before turning. I've certainly come across that in the past. So its harsh to criticise the cyclist for that alone. That said, I'd wager a pound to a penny thats not what happened, because such occurrences are rare.



> Now if we go on to examine what he did next at the junction and with his riding position, then we may 'assume' that his skills may not have been good enough to anticipate the lorry manouevre and he was just lucky. That would be a guess though.



There were safe, legal road positions. To take an illegal position in such circumstances... Why? I mean, does it really gain you anything? Its not about safety, its about believing that your own progress along the road is more important than the law. Its odious behaviour that gets all cyclists a bad reputation.



> I'm thinking that if I'd chosen to go up the inside of the lorry and ahead at the junction I wouldn't have done it without knowing I had time to get past, assuming I judged it safe.



Reasonable, if you're intent on claiming an illegal road space well in front of the white line.

Thing is, I don't believe thats what he was thinking. A safety conscious rider (by which I mean actually clued up about safe riding) doesn't then progress along the road within three inches of the outside of the double yellow lines. Looking at his road position, at his behaviour at the lights, I just don't believe he thought it through that well. Okay, I'm probably being horribly judgementa, but do you think it likely that he's realy had that much foresight?




> you know I reallly don't know the answer to that. I was addressing the original question about him being a bad cyclist, which I answered above. As for safer, they're the kind of decisions you make of the moment. Make the right decision in the wrong way and it comes out wrong. Make the wrong decision with confidence and it turns out OK. He made it through the jct as he probably does every week so what is safe?



I'd say that life is too short to make all of the mistakes yourself. Don't just learn from your own mistakes, learn from other peoples too. Those lessons hurt less.

And for road safety that means that you can't just say 'I do it this way every time', because odds are you can do it wrong every time and still only have very few accidents. Regardless of that, you're still _less_ safe than you would be if you did whatever it is right every time.

In my view, that was poor cycling on that guys part. Whether or not the lorry driver let him past (seems unlikely, but you're right, its possible), the rest of his behaviour netted him no gains and clearly didn't improve his safety either; any advantage he might imagine he has from being so well forward he has more than forfeited with terrible road positioning after the lights changed.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> written when I was feeling grumpy.



Now you're feeling Happy?

Won't the other dwarves start getting jealous?


----------



## Crackle (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Now you're feeling Happy?
> 
> Won't the other dwarves start getting jealous?



 I treat them all equally




Cab said:


> Thing is, I don't believe thats what he was thinking. A safety conscious rider (by which I mean actually clued up about safe riding) doesn't then progress along the road within three inches of the outside of the double yellow lines. Looking at his road position, at his behaviour at the lights, I just don't believe he thought it through that well. Okay, I'm probably being horribly judgementa, but do you think it likely that he's realy had that much foresight?



No you're right I don't think he did but I'd pull short of calling it 'bad' cycling. If the lorry had squished him, it would have been the lorries fault but all of us know that going up the inside of a lorry is potentially dangerous. Equally cycling that close to the kerb leaves him few options should somehting make him swerve or similiar.



Cab said:


> To take an illegal position in such circumstances... Why? I mean, does it really gain you anything? Its not about safety, its about believing that your own progress along the road is more important than the law.



Moving forward of the white stop line is forgivable in my view, if it's done in the right circumstances. When I last commuted on a bike there were few advance stop zones for bikes and i would often filter ahead and then turn and make eye contact with the driver behind me but I did admit earlier that I do not and have not commuted in a city in some time and am aware that things change.


----------



## Amanda P (19 Dec 2007)

Mag (if you're still reading after all that) - is that you shaking your head as the other cyclist trickles through the red light in the first 20 seconds or so?


----------



## magnatom (19 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> I retract my rather grouchy statement about Magnatom being sanctamonious and superior and apologise for it, written when I was feeling grumpy.



Drat! I was looking forward to refuting that one! No worries mate. I can understand how looking at this video in isolation I could come across that way. However, it is never my intent. I do post my own mistakes when I recognise them and others have been pointed out to me and I have accepted them and tried to learn from them. 
I post these videos so that we can all learn from them, including myself. Nothing wrong with people disagreeing with my point of view, it's via debate that we all progress our understanding. 

Oh I should also point out that the title of the thread was actually my attempt at a little humour. I was naming the thread in a similar fashion to the recent bus thread. I wouldn't call this cyclist bad, just a little misguided.

On with the debate.......


----------



## magnatom (19 Dec 2007)

Uncle Phil said:


> Mag (if you're still reading after all that) - is that you shaking your head as the other cyclist trickles through the red light in the first 20 seconds or so?



Yes I did shake my head a little. I know how drivers perceive cyclists who flout traffic lights etc and so I hate seeing cyclists pushing through lights when they don't have to. Therefore, I shook my head in a sanctimonious and superior fashion (only teasing crackle )


----------



## Amanda P (19 Dec 2007)

Ah. The head-shaking is visible. We needed you to tell us about the sanctimoniousness and superiority of it, as that's hard to detect from the video.


----------



## QuickDraw (19 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> ... I think undertaking can be very dangerous. The lorry looked as if it was going straight on. Lorry driver thinks, oh wait a minute I'm going to go left here instead and pulls across.
> 
> What would have happened here if he didn't see a cyclist coming up the left, either by not looking correctly, or if the cyclist happened to be in a blind spot at the time?
> 
> I think if the cyclist had come down there a little later there could have been a serious accident. IMO this justifies my view of filtering down the right wherever possible.



I know the junction very well but that's irrelevant I just want to clarify something: 

Are we saying that you can never pass a lorry on the left? In this particular case there are 2 lanes for turning left so it would be less of an issue but are you saying that if there was only one filter lane we should wait until the lorry is out of the way even if we are turning left? If not what's the difference between riding past and then turning left or riding past and then nipping in front?


----------



## magnatom (19 Dec 2007)

QuickDraw said:


> I know the junction very well but that's irrelevant I just want to clarify something:
> 
> Are we saying that you can never pass a lorry on the left? In this particular case there are 2 lanes for turning left so it would be less of an issue but are you saying that if there was only one filter lane we should wait until the lorry is out of the way even if we are turning left? If not what's the difference between riding past and then turning left or riding past and then nipping in front?



Quickdraw, I am talking about filtering down the left within the same lane or very close to the lorry. When the chap appeared at the side of the lorry he was (my guess) less than a metre from it. No time to react if (like it did) the lorry decides to pull over to the left. If you are well within a lane to the left then you have much more room and time to take evasive action so I would suggest filtering in a lane to the left of the lorry would be fine. Of course I would advise caution when doing this. Does this make sense?


----------



## Arch (19 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Yes I did shake my head a little. I know how drivers perceive cyclists who flout traffic lights etc and so I hate seeing cyclists pushing through lights when they don't have to. Therefore, I shook my head in a sanctimonious and superior fashion (only teasing crackle )




I liked the head shaking. You should call the set up your "tut-tut cam"

I often do similar, just to try and make the point that I think someone's acted stupidly, I don't suppose anyone else notices, but it keeps my neck supple...


----------



## magnatom (19 Dec 2007)

> Mag
> 
> After the head shaking you seem to be looking towards the truck driver. Did he clock you?



I looked up when I heard the truck engine rev just before it pulled to the left. I didn't get a good look at the driver at that point and I don't think he was looking at me. Hopefully he was looking in his left hand mirror!


----------



## magnatom (19 Dec 2007)

Arch said:


> I liked the head shaking. You should call the set up your "tut-tut cam"
> 
> I often do similar, just to try and make the point that I think someone's acted stupidly, I don't suppose anyone else notices, but it keeps my neck supple...



Yeah, I do it without really thinking about it. Looks a bit daft on camera though!


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> No you're right I don't think he did but I'd pull short of calling it 'bad' cycling. If the lorry had squished him, it would have been the lorries fault but all of us know that going up the inside of a lorry is potentially dangerous. Equally cycling that close to the kerb leaves him few options should somehting make him swerve or similiar.



If he hadn't made some kind of contact with the lorry driver, then I'd call it bad cycling. Its needlessly increasing his risk by, I suspect, orders of magnitude (i.e. from almost none to pretty much measurable). Ditto for cycling so close to the kerb but, alas, so many cyclists and motorists think thats the default position that its quite hard to get a more sensible message across.



> Moving forward of the white stop line is forgivable in my view, if it's done in the right circumstances. When I last commuted on a bike there were few advance stop zones for bikes and i would often filter ahead and then turn and make eye contact with the driver behind me but I did admit earlier that I do not and have not commuted in a city in some time and am aware that things change.



I'd say that its really only forgiveable as an emergency, or near emergency measure. Usually with a little forethought you can pick out a safe place to stop short of the line, but the best of us can misjudge things and find ourselves stuck at the front with little option but to pick a safe spot over the line. That said, such should be an extremely rare thing to happen. 

Now, that guy could have stopped before the line, and even if he'd made a mistake and ended up erroneously too far forward he didn't have to go so very far out in front. Its not about safety there, he's simply not of the opinion that he should be concerned with stopping at red lights.

And, for me, its that behaviour that singles him out as a bad cyclist. Its that sheer contempt for the law shown by some cyclists that gets us all a bad rep.


----------



## QuickDraw (19 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Quickdraw, I am talking about filtering down the left within the same lane or very close to the lorry. When the chap appeared at the side of the lorry he was (my guess) less than a metre from it. No time to react if (like it did) the lorry decides to pull over to the left. If you are well within a lane to the left then you have much more room and time to take evasive action so I would suggest filtering in a lane to the left of the lorry would be fine. Of course I would advise caution when doing this. Does this make sense?



Perfect sense. 

I was just checking cos I've no way of knowing how far away he was from the lorry as he filtered. I thought maybe he stayed in the filter lane and then just juked in at the last moment. Given your description I agree, not the most dangerous thing ever but certainly too risky for me. That junction is bad enough on a bike without making it worse. Same goes for going over the line, although it just seems like an extension of the ASL idea headng into Crow Road with two lanes of traffic on your back and having just "skipped" the queue is never going to increase your safety.


----------



## magnatom (19 Dec 2007)

QuickDraw said:


> Perfect sense.
> 
> I was just checking cos I've no way of knowing how far away he was from the lorry as he filtered. I thought maybe he stayed in the filter lane and then just juked in at the last moment. Given your description I agree, not the most dangerous thing ever but certainly too risky for me. That junction is bad enough on a bike without making it worse. Same goes for going over the line, although it just seems like an extension of the ASL idea headng into Crow Road with two lanes of traffic on your back and having just "skipped" the queue is never going to increase your safety.



It is a crazy junction, but I must admit I love cycling through it. If you time the lights right coming down from Bearsden Road you can fly through this junction at a fair speed. I love the look that drivers give me when I keep up with them across the junction and I give them a wee smile!


----------



## Crackle (19 Dec 2007)

Magnatom:  I'll see if I can find another post to pick on you for: Hmmm....... now about that paramedic guy...

Cab: I think I already said he'd gone too far forward, we're agreed on that but as far as I'm concerned that's the only bad thing he did. The other things may not have been the best tactics but they don't comprise bad cycling in my view.

I don't see going forward of the stop line as an emergency measure, I see it as an option. We cyclists are not cars, a safe option is not always strictly legal. Coming up the inside of a line of traffic demands you judge the situation and examine your options.

Have you ever stopped at a green light? I have. I had to cross a very big wide flyover type junction every day. One day there was a howling headwind. As I approached the lights I knew that I would go across on green, I knew normally I'd make it, even though it was the end of the phase. Against the headwind I had no chance and stopped at the green light. Every situation demands a different analysis, even if it's the same situation, as the circumstances might be entirely different on a bike from day to day and most drivers just won't appreciate that.


----------



## Arch (19 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> Have you ever stopped at a green light? I have.



Yes, so have I, when I know I won't be able to make a right turn across oncoming traffic until the next phase change. But since a green light only means 'go if it is safe to do so', that's not illegal. Whereas crossing a stop line after a red (infact, after an amber, unless you can't stop in time) is...


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> Cab: I think I already said he'd gone too far forward, we're agreed on that but as far as I'm concerned that's the only bad thing he did. The other things may not have been the best tactics but they don't comprise bad cycling in my view.



OK, how about answering in a different way? Apart from going past the line, did the cyclist cycle well?



Crackle said:


> I don't see going forward of the stop line as an emergency measure, I see it as an option. We cyclists are not cars, a safe option is not always strictly legal. Coming up the inside of a line of traffic demands you judge the situation and examine your options.



I think it's both illegal and unnecessary nearly all of the time when I observe cyclists doing it. The only times I've ever felt I needed to go ahead of the line is when I did some filtering and wasn't able to get far enough in front of a large vehicle for the driver to be able to see me, since there's another large blind spot just in front of most lorrys. Perhaps that's a slight reflection on my filtering though, more than on the need to go in front of the lorry.


----------



## Crackle (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> OK, how about answering in a different way? Apart from going past the line, did the cyclist cycle well?



Well he didn't weave in and out of the traffic and then pull up directly in front of the car at the front of the queue. He didn't lean on anyones car, didn't abuse anyone, didn't get in anyones way, didn't swear, pick his nose, ride on the pavement. knock a pedestrian down etc.. So in that sense OK so far. 

He went up the inside of a truck which later moved - so what, I might have done the same, I might not. He rode down the road on the yellow line, slowly - again so what, that's up to him.

I would give him 7/10 but deduct two for crossing the stop line in a blatant disregard for the rules, so 5/10.

As for crossing the stop line in other circumstances, then explain to me why there are advanced cycle zones and why you use them then - isn't it the same thing.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> Well he didn't weave in and out of the traffic and then pull up directly in front of the car at the front of the queue.



And thats the bit that bothers me about such RLJing 

A stop box works because it puts you right in front of the other traffic, where you're most visible, where you can claim a safe road position. To instead crawl past on the kerb and take up another poor road position in frnt of the traffic... Why? What does it gain you? You're not particularly more visible, you're not difficult to overtake dangerously. It just seems like a futile manoevre.

(cut)


> As for crossing the stop line in other circumstances, then explain to me why there are advanced cycle zones and why you use them then - isn't it the same thing.



No. Not at all. Not all junctions have the space, nor does a cyclist become safer at all of them by being out in front of the traffic. Ultimately, while there are some junctions that don't have advance boxes that would benefit from one, to invent your own ain't your call when you're on the road.


----------



## Crackle (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Ultimately, while there are some junctions that don't have advance boxes that would benefit from one, to invent your own ain't your call when you're on the road.



That's the only bit I don't agree with - Sorry it is my call. The law can't possibly take account of all the circumstances I find myself in, indeed it allows for ambiguity in many areas, though you might have to justify your actions. On the bike it's much more my safety that's on the line more than someone in a vehicle. Here I am all 74Kgs plus bike on a road which is used by cars which are on average 1.5tonnes heavier than me. The law applies to us both equally but we are not equal, therefore I reserve the right to make my own judgement calls, which include transgressing the letter of the law _should I need to._

Tell me that you've never done that - ever!


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> That's the only bit I don't agree with - Sorry it is my call. The law can't possibly take account of all the circumstances I find myself in, indeed it allows for ambiguity in many areas, though you might have to justify your actions. On the bike it's much more my safety that's on the line more than someone in a vehicle. Here I am all 74Kgs plus bike on a road which is used by cars which are on average 1.5tonnes heavier than me. The law applies to us both equally but we are not equal, therefore I reserve the right to make my own judgement calls, which include transgressing the letter of the law _should I need to._
> 
> Tell me that you've never done that - ever!



Oh, I entirely agree that if you've made a mistake and your only safe option is to break the law, then you do what you've got to do. But thats a last resort, its not what happened in this instance. That cyclist had options other than to break the law, and going through a red light should never be your standard way of dealing with any junction.


----------



## Tynan (19 Dec 2007)

gawd, we all cycle indifferent environments and in different styles, often for good reason, I'm starting to get tired of the judgemental camp on here that sees it all in black and white

and for the thousandth time, rolling over the stop line is not the same as rlj

other than the distance he goes forward I saw nothing wrong, even starting from there is his call, I see nothing remarkable about it


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> gawd, we all cycle indifferent environments and in different styles, often for good reason, I'm starting to get tired of the judgemental camp on here that sees it all in black and white



If you don't want to read opinions on cycling manoevres, don't read a forum where such things are discussed.



> and for the thousandth time, rolling over the stop line is not the same as rlj



For the thousandth time, _no one here has said that all red light jumping is the same_.

Do I actually need to post the definition of 'straw man' somewhere here so that people stop using them?



> other than the distance he goes forward I saw nothing wrong, even starting from there is his call, I see nothing remarkable about it



So gutter crawling and maybe undertaking a lorry rather too close... nothing bad in that at all?


----------



## Tynan (19 Dec 2007)

plenty on here seem to think crossing the stopline is rlj, 'going through a red light should never be your standard way of dealing with any junction' - I don;t consider what that cyclist did as 'going through a red light', as best that's ambiguous language

discussing cycling and judging it as wrong based on personal values is far from the same thing, this is everyone's forum not yours

what gutter hugging? there's no gutter inside that truck, that's the right place to be if he's going ahead in my opinion, correct lane and out where the traffic can see him

likewise how close he was or wasn't to that truck, blind side as viewed and he'd have had plenty of room inside that truck, plus the truck had a car in front of it, it wasn't going anywhere


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Do I actually need to post the definition of 'straw man' somewhere here so that people stop using them?



The first one in the queue can be you!


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> and for the thousandth time, rolling over the stop line is not the same as rlj



Whilst I agree with you, technically it's still the same offence. Besides, it's illegal, and usually unnecessary.


----------



## Crackle (19 Dec 2007)

Well the only new thing I have to add to this is Magnatoms new strap line

______________________________
Magnatom's posts contain no generalisations about other road users but may contain a bit of pontificating and the odd 'tut'


----------



## gbb (19 Dec 2007)

Just looking at the clip again Magnatom...
You have the lorry to your left.
To the left of the lorry are two lanes..i assume of course or traffic turning left. Those two lanes have come from somewhere....perhaps he came from that side.

Is it possible the guy came from the left and crossed those two lanes to get to the traffic lights..so didnt strictly ride alongside the lorry. Does that make sense ?

A possibility..we may never know.

The riders actions are not correct according to laid down recommendations...but we all find a way of riding that suits our abilities, inabilities, confidence and 'fear'

Passing the reds...no big deal IMO, so long as its not pure RLJing.
Riding right up to the crossing traffic...naughty. He could easily spook one of those drivers.
Riding too close to the yellow lines...no big deal IMO. The yellows are at the edge of the drains, which are approx 300mm wide. He appears to be riding just beyond the yellows, so say 350 to 400mm from the kerb.
In all the years ive been cycling ive had less problems at that distance than riding ..say 500mm from the kerb.
At that point, you can start causing problems
for the traffic, and i find they will frequently try to squeeze through an even smaller gap...ergo...more danger to me.

Dont get me wrong, ive had close encounters my way...a few. But when you assume a more positive position and a car (or worse, van or lorry) squeezes even more closely to you...its even more daunting and dangerous IMO.

Good practice is fine IF EVERY motorist allows you to do so. The trouble is, they frequently dont. So we all find a way that works in our own experience.


FWIW, i'm 49 years old. Ive been riding for some 35 years on the roads, but have only taken it seriously for the last 6 years or so. Ive learned a lot in those 6 years, (although some of you may think otherwise  ) At that point i started to consider myself a cyclist, enthusiast..whatever. You start to ride more, learn more, analyse situations more seriously.

Up until that point, i was just a bloke on a bike..pretty much like the guy in the clip. Didnt know..didnt care much either.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

gbb, if you really believe in that sort of spacing from the kerb, I would recommend getting some lessons from a national standards cycling instructor. I know you're very experienced and it might seem like learning to suck eggs, but I'm sure you'd gain a lot from the experience.


----------



## gambatte (19 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> and for the thousandth time, rolling over the stop line is not the same as rlj



No one said its was.

Just makes it hypocritical when we complain about cars crossing the ASLs


----------



## gbb (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> gbb, if you really believe in that sort of spacing from the kerb, I would recommend getting some lessons from a national standards cycling instructor. I know you're very experienced and it might seem like learning to suck eggs, but I'm sure you'd gain a lot from the experience.




But you dont take into account the remainder of my post...
You are technically absolutely right...but as i said, reality means that drivers will often squeeze through the smaller gap you (i) have left. Thats a reality ive faced many times.. it once led to an incredibly dangerous situation for me.
Country road...i can see an oncoming car. I also know i have a car coming up from behind. Theres scarcely enough room for all of us, so i assumed primary or positive position early..to claim the road, if you will.
Well unfortunately, the car coming up from behind didnt give a damn, and was going through whatever...we all passed within inches, and that car passed me probably within 2 inches at 40mph ish. FFS...what HAVE you got to do to make yourself safe...

The point, as stated earlier, is you are right IF drivers respect your place in the road...but they dont. So you adopt strategies that work for you.

Distance from the kerb. Ive ridden 4000 miles plus with that strategy. Ive had fewer problems, never fallen off cos i got too close...and i still alive and kicking. Concentration concentration....that is a requirement i admit to riding close.

In a way i hate to argue against you who observe the 'correct' methods...you set a good example, which i'm reluctantly shooting down...but my reality has taught me that drivers will not respect your place in the road, so you adapt.


----------



## Crackle (19 Dec 2007)

gbb said:


> Well unfortunately, the car coming up from behind didnt give a damn, and was going through whatever...we all passed within inches, and that car passed me probably within 2 inches at 40mph ish. FFS...what HAVE you got to do to make yourself safe...
> 
> The point, as stated earlier, is you are right IF drivers respect your place in the road...but they dont. So you adopt strategies that work for you.



I'd agree with that gbb. There's no substitute for experience and my experience tells me that facing down a car, even if you are in the right, is not clever; there's a time and a place. 

This is what worries me about the National Cycling Standards instructors. We've a few here, teaching the kids to ride, which is a good thing. They must have done the course to get the badge or whatever but most are young and I never see them on a bike i.e they have the theory but not the real world experience. When my kids come to do it I shall monitor closely what they are being taught. Wish I'd done it now, when they were asking for volunteers.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2007)

Really, you guys couldn't be more wrong about that. I think you wouldn't find things as extremely different as you seem to perceive, it all comes down to when and where you need to claim road space. If you're getting passed like that through a pinch point, the chances are you weren't out far enough and/or you didn't look back behind you to communicate with the driver enough.

Being further out then allows you the space to duck left to increase that 2 inches. If you ride where you guys say you ride, then you'll get squeezed like that more often, and you'll also not have any room to manouvre out of the way.

Seriously, I challenge you to take some instruction and report back. I know my own cycling improved as a result, and I thought I was one of the more assertive riders I see.


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

Where did I mention 'my' positioning on the road? 

I agreed with gbb's point about drivers sometimes having no respect for your positioning on the road. 99% of drivers are not cyclists and haven't read Cyclecraft or done a modern course. Most will respect a cyclist in primary position without having a clue why they are there and may well be thinking 'get out the feckin way'. Them I can cope with it's the ones who use their cars to get you out of the way I have problems with.


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> plenty on here seem to think crossing the stopline is rlj, 'going through a red light should never be your standard way of dealing with any junction' - I don;t consider what that cyclist did as 'going through a red light', as best that's ambiguous language



Ambiguous? He went through the red light. The red light means stop behind the white line. He didn't. The term used for crossing the white line when the light is red is red light jumping. There is nothing ambiguous about that language.



> discussing cycling and judging it as wrong based on personal values is far from the same thing, this is everyone's forum not yours



You'll note that it wasn't me complaining about other people making comments. It was you. It would appear that you're all in favour of people saying what they want as long as it doesn't contradict your views :?:

As for 'personal values', rubbish. Really. I've put forward my view based on reasoning, not values. I've said that the bloke in that video is a terrible example and I've said _why_. You, on the other hand, have not made a counter argument. 



> what gutter hugging? there's no gutter inside that truck, that's the right place to be if he's going ahead in my opinion, correct lane and out where the traffic can see him



Keep watching the video. He gets past the junction and keeps cycling more or less on the outer one of the two yellow lines. Gutter hugging.

As for whether out ahead is a good place to be, why? I mean, if all you're going to do is assume a sub-secondary position, thus encouraging that traffic you've passed to overtake you dangerously close, how have you possibly made your journey safer? Would he not have been better waiting somewhere more like where Magnatom was? 



> likewise how close he was or wasn't to that truck, blind side as viewed and he'd have had plenty of room inside that truck, plus the truck had a car in front of it, it wasn't going anywhere



Except of course that the truck did go somewhere. Seems rather brazen, although I do accept that because we can't see him start that manoevre we can't really make any bold statements about it. But of course, I've already said that...


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

gbb said:


> Riding too close to the yellow lines...no big deal IMO. The yellows are at the edge of the drains, which are approx 300mm wide. He appears to be riding just beyond the yellows, so say 350 to 400mm from the kerb.
> In all the years ive been cycling ive had less problems at that distance than riding ..say 500mm from the kerb.



You're right. 350mm (where the guys tyres are, not where he actyally starts!) can be better than, say 500mm. But then again, 350mm is way sub-secondary, and 500mm is little better, in fact a wider sub-primary position just encourages motorists to overtake even closer. 

Neither of those positions is good practice. Get out into the lane properly, get into primary. 



> At that point, you can start causing problems
> for the traffic, and i find they will frequently try to squeeze through an even smaller gap...ergo...more danger to me.



Yep, 'cos you're too close to the kerb. Get out properly, make them _overtake_ you because you're _not_ in the way of the traffic, you are _part_ of the traffic.



> Dont get me wrong, ive had close encounters my way...a few. But when you assume a more positive position and a car (or worse, van or lorry) squeezes even more closely to you...its even more daunting and dangerous IMO.



Your more positive (500mm) position isn't even a little but positive though. Its really rather timid. Its hardly surprising you get a few close encounters. Take primary, those close (dangerous) overtakes become extremely rare.

BentMikey will occasionally speak some dreadful rubbish, but on this point he couldn't be more correct. Get some advice from an instructor, and get hold of Cyclecraft and read it.


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Seriously, I challenge you to take some instruction and report back. I know my own cycling improved as a result, and I thought I was one of the more assertive riders I see.



You probably were. Thing is, good cycling practice seems to be very, very rare.


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

whatever cab, I stand by everything I've posted, everything, you seem to argue for the sake of it, you've been pulled up a couple of times on this thread for changing the original facts to suit your arguments


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> ..... Get out into the lane properly, get into primary.



What all the time anywhere, or are you qualifying that?

Sorry if you are riding in primary at 15/20 mph down a 60mph dual carriageway, you're a plonker (yes I remeber that oft quoted case - the guy was a plonker). If you are riding in primary in traffic doing a similiar speed to you, no issues.


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> whatever cab, I stand by everything I've posted, everything, you seem to argue for the sake of it, you've been pulled up a couple of times on this thread for changing the original facts to suit your arguments



*confused*

What facts have I changed?


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> Well the only new thing I have to add to this is Magnatoms new strap line
> 
> ______________________________
> Magnatom's posts contain no generalisations about other road users but may contain a bit of pontificating and the odd 'tut' :?:





I'm not pontificating and don't think I tutted. A bit of head shaking maybe... 

I think I need to post a few more of my mistakes to level the playing field.


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> What all the time anywhere, or are you qualifying that?



In the situation under discussion, get in to primary. Primary is your default position, although of course you're right when you say that there are places you should be doing otherwise.



> Sorry if you are riding in primary at 15/20 mph down a 60mph dual carriageway, you're a plonker (yes I remeber that oft quoted case - the guy was a plonker). If you are riding in primary in traffic doing a similiar speed to you, no issues.



It rather depends on the dual carriageway :?: If theres good visibility, then taking a sub-secondary position is crazy. Secondary may be appropriate, although there are some sections of dual carriageway I've ridden on where anything but primary would be suicide. Depends, really.


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

gbb said:


> Just looking at the clip again Magnatom...
> You have the lorry to your left.
> To the left of the lorry are two lanes..i assume of course or traffic turning left. Those two lanes have come from somewhere....perhaps he came from that side.
> 
> Is it possible the guy came from the left and crossed those two lanes to get to the traffic lights..so didnt strictly ride alongside the lorry. Does that make sense ?



The two lanes at the left only begin about 20 meters back. It is a filter left lane. If he used one of them he would have had to swerve into it and back out of it. I doubt very much that he did that. Also if you look very closely on the video at where his wheels are as he passes the lorry I would estimate that he is within 1m of the lorry and going straight rather than swerving.


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> I think I need to post a few more of my mistakes to level the playing field. :?:



That one where you undertook the lorry is still spasming my sphincter actually... I would criticise it if I hadn't done similiar things myself.


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> It rather depends on the dual carriageway :?: If theres good visibility, then taking a sub-secondary position is crazy. Secondary may be appropriate, although there are some sections of dual carriageway I've ridden on where anything but primary would be suicide. Depends, really.



No granted: It's impossible to judge a described situation unless, as per Magnatom, you have it on video and even then it's hard to judge angles, speeds etc..


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> That one where you undertook the lorry is still spasming my sphincter actually... I would criticise it if I hadn't done similiar things myself.



Aye, that was probably my biggest mistake so far. Especially with the railings at the side. However, I held my hand up and posted it in the hope that others wouldn't make that mistake. I certainly haven't done that since!!


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

Quick question, well two. 

First, who was beeping in that clip as you took off when the lights changed?
Second. In that clip you are obviously keeping up with the traffic, so in fact it almost doesn't matter where you are on the road. If it's not so busy though, perhaps dark, would you still take primary on that road or move to secondary?


----------



## gambatte (20 Dec 2007)

I was surprised it took so long for someone pointing out the gutter hugging.

Looked to be way too close to the kerb. According to CTC they were trying to get it written into the highway code that you shouldn't ride closer than 700/750mm to the gutter.


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

gutter hugging isn't relevant when you're all on your ownsome, knowing that nothing is coming up behind you


----------



## gambatte (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> gutter hugging isn't relevant when you're all on your ownsome, knowing that nothing is coming up behind you



Still, he wasn't on his ownsome, with nothing behind him and those painted lines are notorious for suddenly becoming slippy....


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> Quick question, well two.
> 
> First, who was beeping in that clip as you took off when the lights changed?
> Second. In that clip you are obviously keeping up with the traffic, so in fact it almost doesn't matter where you are on the road. If it's not so busy though, perhaps dark, would you still take primary on that road or move to secondary?



Crackle the beep was from the cars that had just gone through the junction. I wasn't sure exactly what for, but it might have been a RLJing car or someone pushing across a lane. Nothing to do with me honest!

I cycle this junction coming the other way in the dark. It is slightly up hill so I do go a little slower. I do keep the primary position. If cars want past me they have another lane to take, although that is often full. Anyway once past the junction there is often another queue to join (in both directions).


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> Still, he wasn't on his ownsome, with nothing behind him and those painted lines are notorious for suddenly becoming slippy....



from when he crosses a stop line witha red light to where he stops, he's on his ownsome

as for slippery? at that speeds going in a straight line? not exactly skinny tyres either

this is another huge thread of some very unremarkable cycling for me

we need better material


----------



## mrben (20 Dec 2007)

Just to make things really annoying, when you're going north in the right hand lane, as soon as you get over the junction, you hit the back of the queue for Morrisons, which has a filter at the next light, but a woefully inadequate filter lane. It all gets a bit gnarly.... I can imagine cycling through it would be a tricky manoeuvre.


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

mrben said:


> Just to make things really annoying, when you're going north in the right hand lane, as soon as you get over the junction, you hit the back of the queue for Morrisons, which has a filter at the next light, but a woefully inadequate filter lane. It all gets a bit gnarly.... I can imagine cycling through it would be a tricky manoeuvre.




Going north the traffic is often tailed back from the lights. I turn left after the lights (onto Fulton street) so obviously I stay in the left lane. For that section I don't bother filtering. It just isn't worth it. I take a primary position going all the way up that hill (I am fairly slow here 12-15mph maybe) as it is quite steep in places. 

If I am going to Morissons which I do on occasion  I take the primary in the right lane and remain there all the way up again. It wouldn't be safe any other way. I can honestly say, that I've never had problems there. I think drivers appreciate that the hill slows me down and that traffic ahead is probably going to hold them up anyway. 

I have many more problems before the junction (Crow Road) heading north. The road goes from 2 to 4 lanes and if I don't hold a firm primary I get squeezed. A few of my videos show this bit of road.


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> ...at that speeds going in a straight line....



I was going to mention his speed. At that speed in the primary position, at that point, he's gonna be nothing but a mobile chicane.


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> this is another huge thread of some very unremarkable cycling for me
> 
> we need better material



I disagree (well I would wouldn't I!). What would be better footage for you? The cyclist being hit by the truck (I'm not serious about this by the way)? 

I think it illustrates a point nicely and I am quite pleased to have filmed it and noticed its significance. I think it is almost as good as the film I took of the left hook!

Actually that has got me thinking. Maybe we should have a cycling video of the year award and the winner would get a new bike or something. Surely I would have a chance purely due to the number of videos I have posted!!


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

Hah! get this. Curious I thumbed back through my 'All new Complete Book of Bicycling' by Eugene A Sloane, 3rd Edition 1980. This the how to ride safely chapter (it's American so he's on the right)

_"On a bike you are not the same size as a car. Don't ride as if you were. Most drivers fail to see anything smaller than a car on the road, because they are not used to looking for anything smaller. .............elderley drivers are considered to be dangerous to cyclists. They often have poor vision, poor depth perception, confused colour discrimination, slow reflexes and they are frequently terrible drivers to begin with." _

There's also some class advice on junctions as well. He also advices not to drive on streets without parking as you'll get squeezed out. He recommends streets with parking because by law drivers have to leave a 30" gap to the parked car which a cyclist can take advantage of  He recommends learning to ride in a very straight line


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

only 1980? sounds like 1880, we're getting so old so fast

as for better material, enjoy yourself magna, once I'm filming, your stuff's gonna look like old ladies playing crib

for that matter ...


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> only 1980? sounds like 1880, we're getting so old so fast
> 
> as for better material, enjoy yourself magna, once I'm filming, your stuff's gonna look like old ladies playing crib
> 
> for that matter ...



Oh goodie! I look forward to criticising your cycling technique


----------



## gbb (20 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> Still, he wasn't on his ownsome, with nothing behind him and those painted lines are notorious for suddenly becoming slippy....




Sorry, but i cant agree based on my experiences. As stated, cycling for 35 years, often in the same position as this guy...i have NEVER slipped, skidded or anything else when riding that position. 
Now i have slipped on manhole covers, but only when banking the bike round a corner.....
I should say, i dont generally ride ON the lines, rather just to the right of them. Inevitably, this means at times i will pass onto the lines and off them. But i have never had a problem.
I wouldnt recommend it for an inexperienced cyclist...but.


----------



## gbb (20 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> The two lanes at the left only begin about 20 meters back. It is a filter left lane. If he used one of them he would have had to swerve into it and back out of it. I doubt very much that he did that. Also if you look very closely on the video at where his wheels are as he passes the lorry I would estimate that he is within 1m of the lorry and going straight rather than swerving.




Fair enough, no problem. No, its apparent therefore hes passed the lorry along its length.

To be fair, discussions like this can open your mind to alternatives.
Have i passed a static lorry on the left in the past...yes.
Would i consider it dangerous...no
Would i consider it safe...........no...but i'd proceed with caution. 

That means have i got room on my left ?
Is the lorry stationary, or likely to move off as i pass ?
Are the lights red as i begin to make that decision. If they change, can i get safely past or not. 
Can i pull out of the manoever safely if the lorry starts to move ?
Is the traffic at the front beginning to move...

You make all those and many more judgements in a few seconds. Ive been making those judgements and more all my cycling life. I have NEVER had an accident with another vehicle. (crosses himself ) 

Theres no doubt its really not very wise, not because i see it as outright dangerous, but as you cannot predict all eventualities, it MAY be wise to hold back. But if you apply that across the board...you just wont go out on a bike at all.

Christ, you guys want to go on youtube and look at the london and new york courier races. Its outrageous....but exciting.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> Hah! get this. Curious I thumbed back through my 'All new Complete Book of Bicycling' by Eugene A Sloane, 3rd Edition 1980. This the how to ride safely chapter (it's American so he's on the right)
> 
> _"On a bike you are not the same size as a car. Don't ride as if you were. Most drivers fail to see anything smaller than a car on the road, because they are not used to looking for anything smaller. .............elderley drivers are considered to be dangerous to cyclists. They often have poor vision, poor depth perception, confused colour discrimination, slow reflexes and they are frequently terrible drivers to begin with." _
> 
> There's also some class advice on junctions as well. He also advices not to drive on streets without parking as you'll get squeezed out. He recommends streets with parking because by law drivers have to leave a 30" gap to the parked car which a cyclist can take advantage of  He recommends learning to ride in a very straight line





That sounds like a terrible book with terrible advice, if I'm interpreting that correctly. I think he's telling you to ride in the door zone. Doorings cause the most killed and seriously injured cyclists in London, so I find it hard to imagine worse advice. What's more, that's America. Need I say more?

John Franklin, and proper technique, say to ride in the drivers' vision, which is one reason why you move out to take the entire lane through junctions.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> What all the time anywhere, or are you qualifying that?
> 
> Sorry if you are riding in primary at 15/20 mph down a 60mph dual carriageway, you're a plonker (yes I remeber that oft quoted case - the guy was a plonker). If you are riding in primary in traffic doing a similiar speed to you, no issues.



If you're talking about Daniel Cadden, then again, you're utterly wrong. John Franklin described his cyclecraft as absolutely perfect on that road, and he was overtaken by those motorists as he should have been.


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

gbb,

I would never try to tell someone like yourself how to cycle. In fact I would never tell anyone how to cycle. All I can do is advise others of what I see as dangerous. When informed people are more than capable of making decisions for themselves. You are well informed, and you make your choices based on experience and knowledge. I can't hope for more than that. However, as I am sure you are aware, there are a lot of cyclists who are ignorant of some very important safety issues with regards to cycling. 

Posting these videos leads to debate, and usually amongst those who know a fair amount about what they are taking about. That is exactly what I want. Hopefully less experienced cyclists will read these threads and learn a thing or two, maybe not from me but that doesn't matter. Hopefully they will start thinking more carefully about the situations that we highlight, and maybe one day someone will make a decision based on what is said here that might save a life.

Thats why I post the videos and that is why I want them to be debated. No one would read these threads if everyone patted me on the back and said 'here, here'!

Of course maybe no-one else reads these threads and it just us sad safety freaks that read them


----------



## tdr1nka (20 Dec 2007)

Reasonably happy safety freaks, surely?
We're almost all in one piece 'aint we?

T x

When out on my trike at dusk or at night my appearence has been likened to that of a cross between a Christmas tree and a mobile disco, something I would have died of shame for doing 20 years ago! Needs must.


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Reasonably happy safety freaks, surely?
> We're almost all in one piece 'aint we?
> 
> T x
> ...



My miley at the end seems to have disappeared. I've been having problems with them today 


(Edit: Those worked!)


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> If you're talking about Daniel Cadden, then again, you're utterly wrong. John Franklin described his cyclecraft as absolutely perfect on that road, and he was overtaken by those motorists as he should have been.




Ummn, correction. They shouldn't have been overtaking him as he was doing more than 10mph and they had a double solid white line. What I really meant is that his road positioning caused them to overtake him safely for him. It's only the stupid police who pulled him for cycling legally, instead of the drivers for overtaking illegally.


----------



## tdr1nka (20 Dec 2007)

I have had smiley failure since I joined this site, can't get them to work?!!
:0

T x


----------



## gambatte (20 Dec 2007)

gbb said:


> Sorry, but i cant agree based on my experiences. As stated, cycling for 35 years, often in the same position as this guy...i have NEVER slipped, skidded or anything else when riding that position.
> Now i have slipped on manhole covers, but only when banking the bike round a corner.....
> I should say, i dont generally ride ON the lines, rather just to the right of them. Inevitably, this means at times i will pass onto the lines and off them. But i have never had a problem.
> I wouldnt recommend it for an inexperienced cyclist...but.



I've felt loss of traction with a motorbike, due to a painted section of road.

I'll stick with the CTC advice


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Ummn, correction. They shouldn't have been overtaking him as he was doing more than 10mph and they had a double solid white line. What I really meant is that his road positioning caused them to overtake him safely for him. It's only the stupid police who pulled him for cycling legally, instead of the drivers for overtaking illegally.



It was him I was thinking of but I remembered the circumstances entirely differently, perhaps I'm mixing two seperate things up  I'll just nip off and do some googlin'.


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> I've felt loss of traction with a motorbike, due to a painted section of road.



me too but not on a pushbike, different beast.


----------



## Crackle (20 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> It was him I was thinking of but I remembered the circumstances entirely differently, perhaps I'm mixing two seperate things up  I'll just nip off and do some googlin'.



Blimey! gettin' to be a habit on this thread. I retract my reference to Mr Cadden on the grounds I have a poor memory. I shall modify my previous statement to read:-

_Sorry if you are riding in primary at 15/20 mph down a 60mph dual carriageway, you're a plonker. If you are riding in primary in traffic doing a similiar speed to you, no issues._

And further qualify by admitting, in a tired, resigned kinda way, that there may be occasions when all of the above doesn't apply and it's absolutely useless to make sweeping generalisations!


----------



## bonj2 (20 Dec 2007)

surely the main reason of stupidity behind jumping the lights but then still stopping, is that you then CAN'T SEE the lights..  duhhh.... i've seen motons do this and had to bang on their back window when they change to green.
looks like that didn't happen here but still no point in doing it.


----------



## gbb (20 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> gbb,
> 
> I would never try to tell someone like yourself how to cycle. In fact I would never tell anyone how to cycle. All I can do is advise others of what I see as dangerous. When informed people are more than capable of making decisions for themselves. You are well informed, and you make your choices based on experience and knowledge. I can't hope for more than that. However, as I am sure you are aware, there are a lot of cyclists who are ignorant of some very important safety issues with regards to cycling.
> 
> ...



I agree Magnatom...and have said on several occasions (realising that novices may be reading) that the methods you suggest are undoubtedly the best tactics (on paper...and often in the real world)
The trouble is, as soon as reality takes hold, and each of us are faced with different experiences and situations...we deviate to find a way more suited to those experiences.
Please dont (and i know you wont ) stop giving advise and opening debate..discussion is fine


----------



## gbb (20 Dec 2007)

Reference the RLJing ?

RLJing comes in two different forms.
Those that pass a red and carry straight on.
Those that pass a red and wait at the front (in the belief that you then have a clear and safer place to start from...i assume)

I still have a problem of whether motorists give a damn if you do or dont on the second variety.
We had this discussion a couple months ago. I have never heard or seen a car driver get irate at this action. Ive never heard anyone mention it in conversation around lunch tables or anywhere else for that matter. Does this indicate that, actually, 99% of drivers dont really see it as a problem ?

I used to RLJ in the second fashion regularly, but its occured to me i dont actually do it much at all now....i feel i have the strength and confidence to take my place in traffic more than i ever used to.


----------



## Maz (21 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> _"*On a bike you are not the same size as a car*. Don't ride as if you were. Most drivers fail to see anything smaller than a car on the road, because they are not used to looking for anything smaller. .............elderley drivers are considered to be dangerous to cyclists. They often have poor vision, poor depth perception, confused colour discrimination, slow reflexes and they are frequently terrible drivers to begin with." _


Maybe that was true in 1980. Most Americans _are _the size of a car these days.


----------

