# Official Closest pass video



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

This is officially the closest pass I have ever had. I know this, as I managed to get my full palm on the taxi's window (illustrated in the video). Thus, taking into account his wing mirror, I am lucky that he did not knock me off.

I put my hand out as a reaction to his pass. As a result of this contact he decided to stop and tell me that it was my fault as I was in the middle of the road. If anything I probably didn't close the barn door enough, although (and I realise that Lee will think I am being melodramatic here) he may have made contact with me had I been any further out.

This driving and his attitude are not acceptable, even less so for a 'professional' driver. So I will be taking this to the licensing authority (is that the council in Glasgow?) and demanding that this chap is dealt with. I will also be suggesting that there needs to be an attitude change generally towards cyclists from a proportion of their professional drivers. So I will be suggesting involvement in a campaign similar to what I am currently doing with Arriva. I will of course be carbon copying my letter to the local press which will hopefully encourage a positive response .

Let's see what comes of it.

His passenger looked a bit shocked!


----------



## Vikeonabike (6 Jan 2009)

Oohhhhhhh that made me cringe....due care and attention I think.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Vikeonabike said:


> Oohhhhhhh that made me cringe....due care and attention I think.




Do you really think the police would do anything here? Not only did he endanger me, but I think he forced the car on the opposite side to swerve (it did hit it's horn). However, my experience with the police has been that they will have a chat, but no more. 

Anyway it might be better to use that as leverage to get the licensing authority to do something.


----------



## shunter (6 Jan 2009)

That was close - are you sure drivers are not just picking on you to get on youtube


----------



## rnscotch (6 Jan 2009)

Ohhh sweet jesus, joseph, mary and the wee donkey... you are a better man than me as i can honestly say i would most likely knocked his head of his shoulders after that.

I can assure you that you are not being melodramatic...


----------



## Scratch (6 Jan 2009)

Wow, that looked very scary  I hope you get some result from the council, one slip up and the video would have ended very differently.

Sadly I don't think the police would do much. West Midlands police told me they couldn't do anything following my incident with the bus driver and he swerved at me twice. At least this guy pretty much admitted it was deliberate by saying you were too far over maybe that would count for something 

Best of luck with your campaign any way!


----------



## jay clock (6 Jan 2009)

He was very close.

As a separate point, did you go over the cross hatching on the right hand side of the lane as you went round the roundabout? About 30 secs in to the vid?


----------



## Vikeonabike (6 Jan 2009)

*4x4 Index.*

Tom
cn you get the index off the 4x4 or vehicle behind it?
If you can you may be able to get the police to contact the drivers for a statemetn!
Might help, also helps to try and contact a cycling friendly cop on your patch!


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

jay clock said:


> He was very close.
> 
> As a separate point, did you go over the cross hatching on the right hand side of the lane as you went round the roundabout? About 30 secs in to the vid?




I did on the roundabout yes. I have had a number of cars undertake me on this roundabout in the past (see here for an example). If I obey the hatching it would often bring me into conflict with these cars. I must admit I'm not sure what function that hatching is trying to achieve. 

I suppose legally I should not enter the hatching, but I challenge anyone to show that I would be safer to obey it.

Well spotted though Jay!


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jan 2009)

Scratch said:


> Wow, that looked very scary  I hope you get some result from the council, one slip up and the video would have ended very differently.
> 
> Sadly I don't think the police would do much. West Midlands police told me they couldn't do anything following my incident with the bus driver and he swerved at me twice. At least this guy pretty much admitted it was deliberate by saying you were too far over maybe that would count for something
> 
> Best of luck with your campaign any way!




Did you protest their decision? That seems entirely unreasonable to me, given the camera evidence.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Vikeonabike said:


> Tom
> cn you get the index off the 4x4 or vehicle behind it?
> If you can you may be able to get the police to contact the drivers for a statemetn!
> Might help, also helps to try and contact a cycling friendly cop on your patch!




Not quite. I'm pretty sure the 4x4 is a personalised number plate, but not much else. Of course the taxi had a passenger. Would it not be possible to find out who that was, i.e. where they were picked up? I can make out her face.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Perhaps the worst case of lane positioning I have seen in a long time.
> 
> You are coming off the roundabout in a very poor primary positioning when imo there is no need to take up a primary positioning on the road in the first place.
> 
> ...





I'll get around to reading it later..... maybe.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (6 Jan 2009)

Looks like Primary didn't succeed in discouraging an overtake and instead led to a possible nasty situation.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jan 2009)

I think the problem is two-fold (excepting the driver of course). That road has a wide section followed by a pinch point that comes quite quickly after the roundabout, and this makes primary to control following traffic difficult, yet makes it necessary if you don't want to get stuck at the pinch point trying to renegotiate back into the flow. Secondly, Magnatom left the door half open instead of fully closing it.

I'm sure there must have been some feeling that this driver was going to be impatient, and that might have been enough to make me slow and go left into the recess on exit from the roundabout. A driver with that level of impatience will not usually take long to pass. I don't think it would have been good practice to exit the roundabout close to the curb like Lee suggested.


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Jan 2009)

Have to say I'm less inclined to stir it up than Lee, but I agree with him 100%. The only thing I would add is, if you were the cabbie, would you think 'so I have to slow down to his speed for the next 100 yards, then stay behind him at his speed for who knows how long, since the road narrows up ahead - fair enough', or would you think 'why can't that selfish xx%$%$$&x move over - perfectly safely - and let other people past?'


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> Looks like Primary didn't succeed in discouraging an overtake and instead led to a possible nasty situation.




It would have done, had I been in a strong enough primary.


----------



## cheadle hulme (6 Jan 2009)

I'm with Lee on this one. I would have been aware of the skoda and been more secondary to allow him to pass safely before moving out after hime but in advance of the width restriction.

Unless you're doing 30 yourself, I don't see the need to assume a primary postion that early.

Having said that, it does not excuse his driving. Very poor indeed. 

If you were aware and had time to palm his window, would your efforts not be better placed swerving into the safety zone you had already created? That would be my instinct if I thought I was about to be clipped.


----------



## tdr1nka (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> imo I don't it would have, if you would have been more over to the right. The driver could have tried to undertake you.



Damnned if he did, damnned if he didn't?


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I think the problem is two-fold (excepting the driver of course). That road has a wide section followed by a pinch point that comes quite quickly after the roundabout, and this makes primary to control following traffic difficult, yet makes it necessary if you don't want to get stuck at the pinch point trying to renegotiate back into the flow. Secondly, Magnatom left the door half open instead of fully closing it.
> 
> I'm sure there must have been some feeling that this driver was going to be impatient, and that might have been enough to make me slow and go left into the recess on exit from the roundabout. A driver with that level of impatience will not usually take long to pass. I don't think it would have been good practice to exit the roundabout close to the curb like Lee suggested.




I agree it has to be primary here. The main reason for this is that I cannot be sure what the speed of the following car is, especially as it is accelerating away from a roundabout. So if I take secondary and continue at the speed that I was progressing (a reasonable speed) then it could be possible that the car would start to overtake at the pinch point, by which point I would be starting to move out.

Of course I could slow down, but I would have to do that in an area of road that is not used, often has muck etc in it and more importantly on this occasion would be at higher risk of having the black ice on it that Lee is so good at spotting! (. So I completely disagree with those who say secondary is ok here.

I hear what you are saying about sensing the car, and I usually do (my previous video at this point is a good example of this where I managed to hold the van back). I really thought the door was closed and in 99.9% of situations it would have been. However, this idiot went through a crazy gap which resulted in me being able to hit the car, and the car in the opposite lane hitting it's horn. 

I really love the fact that people say they would have been aware of the car better than I would. Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but how can you possibly be sure about that from the video!? It was quite noise at the time, bus etc, I was concentrating on other things as well (i.e the state of the road etc). 

Also swee'pea99, seriously, do you think this is a reasonable attitude to take? (i'm sure you don't) I can guarantee you that I would not take this attitude in that situation! What you have to remember is that (as I have already stated) there is ample opportunity to overtake 10-15 seconds further on. So what is the rush??!

cheadle hulme, hitting the car with my hand was my instinct. I didn't think about doing it, it just happened. Anyway, remember the temp at this point was about -3C so swerving quickly might not have been the best option.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jan 2009)

Actually, watching it again I'm shading towards Lee's position. I'm not so sure primary is necessary here any more, although it's hard to tell from the video camera as I've not seen it in person.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Damnned if he did, damnned if he didn't?



You don't know how true that is! I've found that over the last couple of years, that no matter what I do, someone will find fault. If I take strong primary I get pelters for that. If I take secondary I get pelters for that. There is no right and wrong in situations like this, only opinions. What gets my goat a little is that it always ends up an armchair discussion on my cycling (I would have done it better etc) when the matter of the fact is that, I was where I was and the following car has to deal with that appropriately. He didn't (in a big way) and yet I get the pelters!



He ho. I'm used to it, and it takes a lot more to get me annoyed these days than it used to. Discussion is good anyway, even if it is mostly critical of me! 

Either I put up, or shut up, and anyone who knows me, knows that I am not one to shut up!  (Actually that should be my sig line!!!)


----------



## wafflycat (6 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I think the problem is two-fold (excepting the driver of course). That road has a wide section followed by a pinch point that comes quite quickly after the roundabout, and this makes primary to control following traffic difficult, yet makes it necessary if you don't want to get stuck at the pinch point trying to renegotiate back into the flow. Secondly, Magnatom left the door half open instead of fully closing it.
> 
> I'm sure there must have been some feeling that this driver was going to be impatient, and that might have been enough to make me slow and go left into the recess on exit from the roundabout. A driver with that level of impatience will not usually take long to pass. I don't think it would have been good practice to exit the roundabout close to the curb like Lee suggested.



Plus magnatom, if cycling any closer to the kerb, would very soon have been in the door zone of the cars parked ahead. The fault is entirely with the driver of the car.

*Edit: Because no matter where on the road magnatom was positioned, any following car should only be overtaking *when it is safe to do so* and it clearly wasn't - apart from magnatom, there was oncoming traffic. The driver is at fault. Period.*


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 Jan 2009)

However much you like it motorists will sometimes do a stupid overtake and if they are going to take stupid risks of which they do then you can only be aware and take evasive and preventative action.


----------



## wafflycat (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Entirely with the driver??



Yes.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

I'll humour you lee...



User3143 said:


> *Would you not check over your shoulder though?*



I do at 45 seconds and 47 seconds. Once every two seconds. Not bad really.



User3143 said:


> *Not really, imo the road is so wide you can be a good 3-4 feet from the kerb, hardly in the gutter.*



Read my post. That part of the road isn't used. -3C. Go figure.



User3143 said:


> *Did you check behind you at all from the moment you eneterd the road to the point of the overtake?*



41 seconds, 45 seconds and 47 seconds. Can you not see my head move? Remember, my eyes can move independent of my head as well and so can see further behind me than the camera. Eyes are amazing aren't they!



User3143 said:


> *No need, look over your shoulder*



41 seconds, 45 seconds and 47 seconds.


I thank you!


----------



## Crackle (6 Jan 2009)

Oooh good one Maggers. This one's got legs. I shall follow this thread with interest. I think Lee's up at the minute but Waffly might have tipped things back to you.....


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Even though mag was in the middle of the road when there was no need?




Yes! That's the way it works Lee. Have you passed your driving test?


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Oooh good one Maggers. This one's got legs. I shall follow this thread with interest. I think Lee's up at the minute but Waffly might have tipped things back to you.....




I think my 16:35 reply swung me a majority!


----------



## cheadle hulme (6 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> I really love the fact that people say they would have been aware of the car better than I would. Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but how can you possibly be sure about that from the video!? It was quite noise at the time, bus etc, I was concentrating on other things as well (i.e the state of the road etc).



I have a much derided mirror when commuting. Coming off a r/b and approaching a pinch point I would make sure I was 100% aware of what was behind me. Makes it much easier to adopt secondary, then pull out behind the car once it passes. Smooth and avoids any unnecessary "friction". I take your point about road conditions though.

Fair play to you for posting and inviting debate!


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> How comes you didn't adjust your line in respect of the taxi then?




Wait a minute, do you agree that you could possibly have been wrong then Lee? Maybe your viewing skills weren't as good as you make out! 

I must admit I can't remember, and the video doesn't show it, but it is certainly possible that I changes my riding line. I probably did. My memory and the video is not conclusive on this, so we will never know.

Now will you answer, have you passed your driving test, and if so, who has the onus of safety in an overtake situation?


----------



## wafflycat (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Even though mag was in the middle of the road when there was no need?



Oh but there was a need. There was a pinch point coming up, followed by parked cars immediately on the left. The onus, as regards any overtake, is on the driver wishing to perform the overtake only to do so when it is safe. It was not safe to do so at that time. As a driver, I would not have done that overtake. Even if I thought the cyclist was being an utter twat, that does not give any driver the right to perform a dangerous overtake that could have killed someone. Now, as you are known for trolling and acting as devil's advocate, for your own amusement, that's as far as I respond to you as it seems you take joy in winding up magnatom for the sake of it.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

cheadle hulme said:


> I have a much derided mirror when commuting. Coming off a r/b and approaching a pinch point I would make sure I was 100% aware of what was behind me. Makes it much easier to adopt secondary, then pull out behind the car once it passes. Smooth and avoids any unnecessary "friction". I take your point about road conditions though.
> 
> Fair play to you for posting and inviting debate!



As I said to Lee I may have moved over as he approached. the video and my memory are not good enough to say if this happened. I do know that as I pass the pinch point I am further to the left than I normally would be, so that suggests I changed my line. 

I have reacted in the past to approaching vehicles. This was a good one!


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I don't think it did, by the looks of the vid, the taxi caught you by surprise and rather then ride to the safety zone on your left you decide to hit the side of the car.




I've already admitted previously that I was surprised by the overtake, because I thought I had closed the door. Do read my posts dear boy! 

I do love how by just looking at the video you have an insight into my psyche at the time of the incident! You can see black ice read minds! I'm impressed!


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> The driver behind. But if you want to revert to that old line then that is fine. You and WC can go and have a cup of virtual tea.
> 
> If you want to discuss the different aspects of that overtake and your positioning prior to that overtake then by all means type away.




Wait a minute earlier on you were suggesting that I was also at fault. Now you agree that the overtaking driver was fully at fault. Make your mind up! 

And it is you who wishes to discuss it!


----------



## tdr1nka (6 Jan 2009)

Jeez Lee, that Ivory Tower of yours must cost a fortune to heat!


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Especially when there was loads of room. Answer me this how comes mag was in primary and the car was still able to overtake and still be on his side of the road?



It wasn't lee, its tyres cross the line. That's why the car hit it's horn. Why else would the car hit it's horn?


----------



## tdr1nka (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I have to go to work now, bye.



To do something useful I hope!


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Why didn't you cycle to the left then? Instead you decided to hit the taxi.




 Read my posts Lee. I've answered this a couple of times already.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> At 0.48, at the point where the taxi over took you you can clearly see the offside of the car was still on your side of the road.




Is this work?

Yes once the car had passed me it came back over. Cars can do that, change direction, you know!


----------



## Crackle (6 Jan 2009)

It was the drivers fault: Pinch points eh. I would probably have ridden it the same. I may have moved in to let the car past and then back out, depends if it was one car or several, how fast I was going etc.. or I may have just stayed there. It doesn't matter, it was the drivers fault. Did I say it was the drivers fault?

Anyway if Maggers hadn't been riding at Granny speed and actually paying attention as opposed to planning his next road safety campaign in his head.........


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Anyway if Maggers hadn't been riding at Granny speed and actually paying attention as opposed to planning his next road safety campaign in his head.........



What was that I said about an ignore list Crackle...


----------



## dodgy (6 Jan 2009)

Sorry, I think there was some militant primary positioning there which proably wasn't necessary.


----------



## Crackle (6 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> What was that I said about an ignore list Crackle...




It's OK. I've edited it to add the wink now


----------



## tdr1nka (6 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Anyway if Maggers hadn't been riding at Granny speed and actually paying attention as opposed to planning his next road safety campaign in his head.........



Just think of the merchandise!
Magnatom t-shirts, Magnatom biscuits..


----------



## rnscotch (6 Jan 2009)

Is Lee sponsored by andrex? ....


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I've passed four driving tests, all first time. There is a fine line between taking up your position on the road and just being a hazard when there simply is no need. Imo you were the latter. Yes the driver should not have overtaken so close that, but on the other hand you didn't do yourself any favours being where you was when there was no need to take that line in the first place.




Waffly is right, the driver is completely and utterly in the wrong. What we're discussing though, is whether Magnatom could have done things better, and that's where I agree that it might have been wiser to stay left, slow a little, and negotiate back out again to get past the pinch point and door zone.

You can't say Magnatom was being a hazard - that's plain nonsense.


----------



## goo_mason (6 Jan 2009)

I would say that the car IS over the line as it goes for the overtake - I've paused and stepped the video and IMHO he's over it.

To be perfectly honest, I'd most likely have ridden that road exactly the same way that Magnatom did as the pinch point came up. There's only so much looking behind you can do whilst you're trying to stay aware of the road ahead. I've had attempted passes like this (though not quite as close) - I've been aware that there's a car coming up behind, I've been checking behind but there's no way to anticipate if they'll decide that they'll try and dive past when they get closer. 99.9% of drivers will come up behind and sit and wait until you're able to safely let them get by.

Trying to work out what happens in Magnatom's video, it seems he's aware of the car and not expecting the close pass. He knows the car is there (he's been looking around and has obviously heard it behind), but thinks he's in enough of a primary position that no-one would be daft enough to try and squeeze by. Then he seems to be aware that something's happening and looks round, gets the fright of his life and automatically shoots his hand out unconsciously to fend off the danger. It's a reflex reaction that you'll see in many videos - there's a classic I've seen where a guy's almost wiped out by a rally car; the minute he realises it's upon him, he shoots his hands out to try and push it away...

Oh, and I'd love to be as perfect a cyclist as Lee. Must be nice to be able to ride every situation in such a textbook fashion (except for when it comes to stopping when the lights are at red... ) The onus was on the driver to wait until it was safe to overtake; he didn't. This is what the whole video boils down to - an idiotic cabbie endangering the lives of others.

I'll now sit and wait to be told that I should be joining Waffles & Maggers in a virtual cup of tea because I've dared to disagree...


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 Jan 2009)

Drivers always do things wrong,that's obvious and doesn't really help when you are spread eagled over someones bonnet.

I came up against one prat at Tower Gateway this morning in a van who thought it was ok to stick his foot to the floor so he could rush up to the (red) traffic lights and the rearside of the car stopped at them.Same tonight at Leyton Station leaving me no safety space leaving me stranded in the middle of the top at Leyton Station.What a prat small penis syndrome.

However annoying that is,drivers will always do it is the way I look at it and however much we rant and moan won't change a damn thing.


----------



## tdr1nka (6 Jan 2009)

goo_mason said:


> I'll now sit and wait to be told that I should be joining Waffles & Maggers in a virtual cup of tea because I've dared to disagree...



Banished no less!


----------



## Bollo (6 Jan 2009)

Its matters not if Maggers chose to exit the roundabout naked, body-painted in blue woad and screaming "Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace!", it doesn't give the driver ANY right to endanger his life.

Remember what we're trying to achieve by all this primary/secondary nonsense - to control our environment using the very limited tools at our disposal. The fact that we feel the need to do this reflects on how little some road users care for the safety of others.


----------



## Bollo (6 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Drivers always do things wrong,that's obvious and doesn't really help when you are spread eagled over someones bonnet.


True, and ultimately its no good being right and dead. We're also human too (something that gets forgotten by many of our road-using chums) and sometimes the frustration at being treated like crap 24-7 can boil over. Last month I came as close to fisticuffs as I've ever done as an adult with a c0ck of a courier. He'd passed me close, but what really set me off was that he just didn't care that he'd risked my life, even in some small way. I'd deserved it by getting in his way and delaying him for about 3 seconds.


----------



## wafflycat (6 Jan 2009)

goo_mason said:


> I'll now sit and wait to be told that I should be joining Waffles & Maggers in a virtual cup of tea because I've dared to disagree...



I'd be more than happy to share a pot of tea with you goo!


----------



## wafflycat (6 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> Its matters not if Maggers chose to exit the roundabout naked, body-painted in blue woad and screaming "Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace!", it doesn't give the driver ANY right to endanger his life.



I will now have a certain mental vision everytime I read a post by maggers... Nurse! Medications required!


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> Its matters not if Maggers chose to exit the roundabout naked, body-painted in blue woad and screaming "Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace!", it doesn't give the driver ANY right to endanger his life.
> 
> Remember what we're trying to achieve by all this primary/secondary nonsense - to control our environment using the very limited tools at our disposal. The fact that we feel the need to do this reflects on how little some road users care for the safety of others.



I think even Lee acknowledged that. I certainly did.


----------



## goo_mason (6 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> I'd be more than happy to share a pot of tea with you goo!



I've just got a nice pot of Lady Grey infusing.... like a cup ?


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> True, and ultimately its no good being right and dead. We're also human too (something that gets forgotten by many of our road-using chums) and sometimes the frustration at being treated like crap 24-7 can boil over. Last month I came as close to fisticuffs as I've ever done as an adult with a c0ck of a courier. He'd passed me close, but what really set me off was that he just didn't care that he'd risked my life, even in some small way. I'd deserved it by getting in his way and delaying him for about 3 seconds.



Can't say I blame you.The attitude out there sometimes,stinks.


----------



## HLaB (6 Jan 2009)

Holy smoke Magnaman that is close. My self I think I would of gradually spiraled out of rab a bit earlier making allowing me more time to assess the situation before the pinch point but that's not where that imbecile decided to reconfirm he was an idiot. I don't think it'd mattered what position you were in he'd still been an idiot and if you had been in a different position you'd get a different idiot on a different day. I think we have to be continually alert for idiots like that and adapt our position as neccesary. I've been quite fortunate over the last few weeks when I've been more primary than normal because of the possibility of ice.


----------



## wafflycat (6 Jan 2009)

goo_mason said:


> I've just got a nice pot of Lady Grey infusing.... like a cup ?



Oh no, don't take it personally, but I don't like drinking pot pourri  How about some nice Russian Caravan, or even some ordinary tea.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> Its matters not if Maggers chose to exit the roundabout naked, body-painted in blue woad and screaming "Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace!", it doesn't give the driver ANY right to endanger his life.



Magnatom thinking bubble: Mmm. I need some more funds for my new bike purchase....mmmm I wonder how much sponsership I could get to exit that roundabout naked, body painted........

( I expect I would get more not to do it!)


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Jan 2009)

Lee, in his very first post specifically makes the point that 

"I'm not finding excuses for the taxi drivers behaviour here, as his driving was poor."

His further point being:

"imo there is ample room leading up to the pinch point. Why did you not stay in secondary and then 30 yards from the ''pinch point'' look behind you and move across?"

imo also

Certainly that's what I would have done in that situation. 

In short, the driver's driving was bad and reckless - but that doesn't change the fact that assuming primary unnecessarily and expecting everyone else to organise themselves around you is asking for trouble.


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 Jan 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Bollo*
> 
> 
> _Its matters not if Maggers chose to exit the roundabout naked, body-painted in blue woad and screaming "Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace!", it doesn't give the driver ANY right to endanger his life._


_

*No doubt,but this doesn't stop the motons.*
_


----------



## boydj (6 Jan 2009)

I think the point that is being missed by the 'move over and let them pass' brigade is that from the end of the narrow exit from the roundabout to the next pinch point is only about 5 or six seconds. For me that is just too short a distance to give up primary and risk having a queue of traffic make it difficult to get back out – and that's without the added difficulty of the weather and the 'uncleaned' parts of the carriageway. The taxi gets into the pinch point only a couple of metres ahead of Mags, so there is not a lot of space to let even one vehicle pass and then get back out. 


I would also hold primary from the roundabout to the pinch point. The overtake was dangerous and unnecessary – a piece of vigilante behaviour on the part of the taxi driver. He needs to be reported.


----------



## cycling fisherman (6 Jan 2009)

both parties are to blame on this one 75% taxi 25% magnatom, however the taxi driver was bang out of order for overtaking so dangerously even if you were in the middle of the road.

I think your reaction was spot on by the way, i know i would not have handled the situation as well, especially when he stopped I would have got off the bike and ended up dragging him out of his car and giving him some bad news.

For that you should be commended


----------



## BentMikey (6 Jan 2009)

cycling fisherman said:


> both parties are to blame on this one 75% taxi 25% magnatom



Oh come on, how can you possibly blame magnatom for the numpty driver's overtake? It's purely the driver's stuffup.

We might be criticizing magnatom on this topic, but at the very "worst" that's only what he could have done better from a best practices point of view. From a blame/legal point of view he did nothing at all wrong.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Oh come on, how can you possibly blame magnatom for the numpty driver's overtake?


Coz he's on a bike, innit.


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Oh come on, how can you possibly blame magnatom for the numpty driver's overtake? It's purely the driver's stuffup.
> 
> We might be criticizing magnatom on this topic, but at the very "worst" that's only what he could have done better from a best practices point of view. From a blame/legal point of view he did nothing at all wrong.



Im not criticising magnatom,you have to do what you think is right at the time.May not always be the right decision or it may be.Who knows?


----------



## Twenty Inch (6 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I've passed four driving tests, all first time. There is a fine line between taking up your position on the road and just being a hazard when there simply is no need. Imo you were the latter.* Yes the driver should not have overtaken so close that,* but on the other hand you didn't do yourself any favours being where you was when there was no need to take that line in the first place.



...And that's where you make everything else you say irrelevant. Thank you for agreeing with us.


----------



## Bollo (6 Jan 2009)

cycling fisherman said:


> both parties are to blame on this one 75% taxi 25% magnatom



Nope. Magnatom is to blame 0%. The taxi is to blame 0% - its a vehicle. The driver, the sentient being behind the wheel, who controls the 1.5 tonnes of machinery is 100% to blame. All his brain had to do was to tell his right foot not to move 1 inch down. Try it, its easy!

You might disagree with the subtleties of his road positioning and we can argue the toss all night, but Magnatom rode in a completely consistent and predictable way and the driver knew exactly where we was on the road. He just didn't like it. Its not like maggers popped out of the ground (naked, blue woad etc).


----------



## Downward (6 Jan 2009)

100% Drivers fault and you have to remember your not in control of how people overtake. IMO better to move over a bit and let him past then "hope" he will be patient and stay behind. I understand though that due to the condition of the road it wasn't safe to ride close to the curb.


----------



## Maz (6 Jan 2009)

Driver in the wrong! Way too close on the overtake.


----------



## Joseph (6 Jan 2009)

There's no doubt that the taxi driver is a nutter for overtaking there.

It does seem to be a common theme with drivers; there are a number on the roads that feel they *have* to get past you if the road is wide enough for them to fit past you, whether it's by undertaking or overtaking. To be honest I don't really have a better approach than trying to guess when you've got one of them behind you and slow down and pull over to let them pass, even if it means stopping.

It's only slightly further down from there I had a bus driver who was right behind me and revving his engine so it was clear he was going to overtake regardless of the fact that was only physically just enough room for him to get past without clipping me or the oncoming traffic, even if I cycled directly next to the parked cars - there was a clear "you move out the way or I'm going to hit you" game of chicken going on. (I did report him to the police, but apparently I didn't do it quite right so would have to report it again and then go in for an interview, and by the time they told me that sufficient time had passed that it didn't seem quite worthwhile.)

As you might remember, my approach is just to avoid that roundabout


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Well it's certainly got a debate going! 

I'll be reporting him tomorrow when I get a chance. 

Do you know what. My wife is sitting next to me at the moment, and has suggested that I take an advanced driving test. I think that is a bl**dy good idea. That way I could get on a higher horse than Lee!  (18 hands would about do it apparently as she is a horsey type!)

Seriously though, I might just look into an advanced test. Anything to improve my road skills on and off the bike. We all have room for improvement. wouldn't you all agree......Lee?


----------



## tdr1nka (6 Jan 2009)

Mag, I've watched this vid a few times now with respect to the posts of others and I don't think you could have ridden that stretch of road any other way, considering the conditions.

An instructor might suggest that you could have held a stronger primary on approach to the pinch point but that could put you nearer the center line and as has been said 'might' encourage undertaking(considering the pinch point comes out from the left this would be incredibly rash and dangerous for even the most impatient and ignorant moton.).
_
*Last month I had a council dust cart undertake me going over a cross roads, after beeping at me at a red light, mouthing and gesticulating that I should move from the ASL box and get out of his 'FUGGING' way?!)*_

There is no reason apparent in this vid to suggest in any way that you should have pulled to the left and let this idiot past.

IMO the overtaking car's driver side tyres are, at the very least, a foot or so over the central lines.

Ride on Mags and stay safe!


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Cheers Mr tdr1nka. I think some folk forget that watching the video again and again is a luxury that you don't have during the 0.5 seconds where you need to make the decisions!

By the way I will be looking into an advanced *driving* course not a cycling course. My cycling is already advanced......


----------



## thomas (6 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Yes.



The driver could have waited so entirely his fault, so I'm with Mags and Waffly - not Lee. If I didn't know what a car was doing I wouldn't overtake on my bike or when driving. Watching the video he didn't seem an amazing distance out. Cycle it closer next time and I'm sure he'll just have some other idiot doing something.



magnatom said:


> By the way I will be looking into an advanced *driving* course not a cycling course. My cycling is already advanced......



Depends what type of advance driving course you do, but it could have some benefit. You can do the Advance motorists one. That's meant to be quite good, but it teaches you more about anticipation and things like that (i think)


----------



## goo_mason (6 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Cheers Mr tdr1nka. I think some folk forget that watching the video again and again is a luxury that you don't have during the 0.5 seconds where you need to make the decisions!
> 
> By the way I will be looking into an advanced *driving* course not a cycling course. My cycling is already advanced......



Sounds interesting. Here's another idea - we invite Lee up to be part of the PfS 2009 team. And let him wear the camera.


----------



## Crackle (6 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Cheers Mr tdr1nka. I think some folk forget that watching the video again and again is a luxury that you don't have during the 0.5 seconds where you need to make the decisions!
> 
> By the way I will be looking into an advanced *driving* course not a cycling course. *My cycling is already advanced*......



I avoided spitting tea on the laptop but I did have to towel the dog down.


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Actually I'm not sure I could afford the lessons I would need and the test. Monies a bit tight at the moment, espacially as I am wanting a new bike!

Hmm. I'll look into it, but maybe not for a while...


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> I avoided spitting tea on the laptop but I did have to towel the dog down.




Actually, I would like to take part in one of the bikeability courses or something similar, but I don't think they hold them in Scotland. Anyone know?


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

goo_mason said:


> Sounds interesting. Here's another idea - we invite Lee up to be part of the PfS 2009 team. And let him wear the camera.




Is this another hint at me editing the footage?


----------



## magnatom (6 Jan 2009)

Actually, the training might be free!!

http://www.iamglasgow.org/index.asp?key=8

Cool!


----------



## tdr1nka (6 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Actually, I would like to take part in one of the bikeability courses or something similar, but I don't think they hold them in Scotland. Anyone know?



Have a look here.


----------



## col (6 Jan 2009)

Again what i have noticed is the usual little digs from the usual people because someone dissagrees.For the record i would have come off the rb in secondary and stayed there till i was near the pinch point and checked for a gap then moved over,if there was no gap i wouldnt and would have waited till there was.This i believe is the safest thing to do all round.There are genuine reasons for primary,just as there are not genuine reasons for it,this was the latter in my opinion.The driver was an impatient idiot,but then we know they are out there,so i would err on the side of caution and safety in this instance.


----------



## cycling fisherman (6 Jan 2009)

> Again what i have noticed is the usual little digs from the usual people because someone dissagrees


The thing is col, this is a public internet forum and that is the type of thing that happens on here the internet, (ushers col to one side and reassures him he is not alone in these shallow thoughts)

A place of expression, debate and thought provoking posts and threads...

Come on col lighten up it's all just a bit of fun (brings col back to the forum and pats him on the back)


----------



## col (6 Jan 2009)

cycling fisherman said:


> The thing is col, this is a public internet forum and that is the type of thing that happens on here the internet, (ushers col to one side and reassures him he is not alone in these shallow thoughts)
> 
> A place of expression, debate and thought provoking posts and threads...
> 
> Come on col lighten up it's all just a bit of fun (brings col back to the forum and pats him on the back




(ushers fisherman to the side of the room and points out a familiar patern that he may not have noticed)
Im as light as a light thing,just an observation of a familiar tactic used by some.
(does a morecambe slap and says thanks for the moral boost,but you misunderstood observation for shallow,squeezes his cheeks so he has duck lips,and says,now try to whistle?)


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Jan 2009)

IMO, considering the road conditions, Mag took the safest line off the roundabout and had plenty of room to move.

Had he taken a secondary position it would've been likely the cab might just as easily made the same move as Mag entered the pinch point.

If this cab had been hunting Mags back wheel and displaying signs of impatience then I might well be suggesting he should have dropped back and let the idiot past.
This driver was impatient and took a pretty major risk with little or no warning.
Add the oncoming traffic into the equation his decision was potentially lethal.

What I really mean to say is that Mags was taking a visible, safe and confident position on the road, something some motorists, and cyclists it appears, should try accept, adapt and understand as the norm for the safety of all cyclists.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> IMO, considering the road conditions, Mag took the safest line off the roundabout and had plenty of room to move.
> 
> Had he stayed in a secondary position it would've been likely the cab might just as easily made the same move as Mag entered the pinch point.
> 
> ...




In this case his position encouraged a dangerous pass,and it might have happened at the pinch point if he hadnt looked before moving out,which i doubt would be the case.
What,it seems some cyclists should accept is that we cant always claim a road and hold others up when there is no need to,it causes things like this to happen.Now a more considerate and safer way is to go secondary and let these vehicles pass before hitting the narrow.


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> In this case his position encouraged a dangerous pass,and it might have happened at the pinch point if he hadnt looked before moving out,which i doubt would be the case.
> What,it seems some cyclists should accept is that we cant always claim a road and hold others up when there is no need to,it causes things like this to happen.Now a more considerate and safer way is to go secondary and let these vehicles pass before hitting the narrow.



Just being a cyclist is often encouragement enough to the impatient.

FWIW I see Mag taking and holding his road space more or less consistently from the moment he left the roundabout to the point of the overtake.

The question of when one can or cannot hold up traffic should be down to the individual cyclist to decide by their own assesment.

As cyclists we have, by law, the right to be allowed to go about our business without fear of idiots like the driver in this example.
Allowing drivers such as this to decide how and where someone can cycle is something that should be derided.

Every pun intended.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Just being a cyclist is often encouragement enough to the impatient.
> 
> FWIW I see Mag taking and holding his road space more or less consistently from the moment he left the roundabout to the point of the overtake.
> 
> ...




I agree with you.But taking a road position that holds others up when there is plenty of distance to pull in and let them by is just asking for impatient drivers to push passed. why not let it passed before the narrow?


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> I agree with you.But taking a road position that holds others up when there is plenty of distance to pull in and let them by is just asking for impatient drivers to push passed. why not let it passed before the narrow?



That's the thing tho, and Mag admits this, he had no impression that this driver was trying to get past until he made the move to overtake.

Would it not have been better if the driver had stayed back the few seconds until Mag passed the pinch point wherein he would have pulled over after the first parked car and waved thanks as the driver passed?

Admittedly there are plenty of cyclists/numpties/POB's I encounter, usually wearing headphones, who are utterly oblivious of the flow of traffic around them and do bring out this kind of reckless daring in motorists, but in this instance I don't feel Mags is being such an enormous obstacle to this driver.

FWIW If I had to get out of the way of every impatient motorist I meet I'd be better off walking.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> That's the thing tho, and Mag admits this, he had no impression that this driver was trying to get past until he made the move to overtake.
> 
> Would it not have been better if the driver had stayed back the few seconds until Mag passed the pinch point wherein he would have pulled over after the first parked car and waved thanks as the driver passed?
> 
> Admittedly there are plenty of cyclists/numpties/POB's I encounter, usually wearing headphones, who are utterly oblivious of the flow of traffic around them and do bring out this kind of reckless daring in motorists, but in this instance I don't feel Mags is being such an enormous obstacle to this driver.




Again i agree,we all know he isnt a big obstacle,but we also know how drivers react when held up with no apparent reason to them,and this looks like one of those times.If the pinch point was just off the exit of the rb i would agree with his line,but its too far away and he is too slow to warrant the obstruction.


----------



## mr_hippo (7 Jan 2009)

Yet another puerile offering from the forum's resident drama queen! Can someone show me where on the video where "My palm made full contact with the car window" happened? I did, however, see finger tips on an outstretched arm which may or may not have touched the car's windiw.


----------



## 4F (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> In this case his position encouraged a dangerous pass,and it might have happened at the pinch point if he hadnt looked before moving out,which i doubt would be the case.
> What,it seems some cyclists should accept is that we cant always claim a road and hold others up when there is no need to,it causes things like this to happen.Now a more considerate and safer way is to go secondary and let these vehicles pass before hitting the narrow.



Good point well put. With someone so close up my arse off the roundabout I would have taken a safe secondary out of the roundabout and then claimed primary before the pinchpoint.

We all know we have a right to the road without getting run down however whilst there are other idiots on the road like this taxi driver I would rather be safe at home rather than in a hospital bed knowing that I had a right to be in primary.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

Oh bejeezus! It's happened. I've attracted all the forum trolls at once!  (ok a few are missing but they'll be here shortly!)

For the record, Lee, col and Mr Hippo, on every single occasion that they have ever posted on one of my threads have told me that I have done this wrong, done that wrong, etc. That is the only time that they ever post on my threads. I have never once had a comment like, good work Mag, or nice one mag or good point mag. Now I know not everyone agrees with me. Fair enough, but most reasoned people at least accept some of my arguments, agree that there are reasons for me doing this and that etc. However, there are those that only ever seem to be negative.

For example lee you harked on continuously for a number of threads about me not looking back. I ignored it for a while, and left you to it. Eventually I decided to answer your point and demonstrated that in fact over the period that you suggested that I had not looked over my shoulder once, I had in fact looked over my shoulder 3 times (over 7 seconds I think!). Did you accept that you were wrong? No. You just moved on to further negative discussion. That in my book is a troll. 

As for col, all I'll say is have a look at the green wheelie bin and the threads he has posted there. You believe in conspiracies don't you col.

Mr Hippo. LOL! Drama queen! LOL!  I challenge you to find one person on here who has met me in person and there are many to agree with you that I am a drama queen. (Ok ignore what Tete says as he just likes winding me up ). Dancing queen, perhaps, as I have been known to grace the odd dance floor in my time with my silky moves. 

As for full palm on window, are you blind Mr Hippo. Look at the picture which maz posted. It is from the frame before the picture I show at the end of my video. You can just make out the shadow of my hand on the car window. Now look at the picture in my video. The shadow has disappeared. Why, because my hand is on the window. Also why do you think the car stopped? Did it maybe have something to do with my hand hitting his window perhaps?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

P.S

Are those that are suggesting that I held him up seriously suggesting that the 10 seconds that it took me to leave the roundabout and get to the pinch point, or the 16 seconds that it takes me from leaving the roundabout to get to a point in the road where a safe overtake could occur where excessive?

If you do then you must suffer from significant stress when driving with all the hold ups on the road. Might I suggest beta blockers...


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

I think you're a bit quick to dismiss Lee's posts, Mags. Sure, he's a bit in your face, but I think he does have a point if you look beyond that. Would it have cost you anything to slow a little, go secondary to let the car past, and negotiate back to primary? Lee (and I) aren't saying you had to do this, just that it would have been better karma. It was quite a long stretch of wideness from the roundabout, long enough.

Col and Hippo, yes, agreed totally with you.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

p.s. If you'd been going faster, then I'd say no way to secondary, but at your medium pace it wouldn't have taken much to slow enough to let him past.

I also think you'd gain a lot from cycling lessons. I certainly did, it made me reassess my riding quite a lot.


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 Jan 2009)

Thing is, Magnatom, you seem to have zero perception of how your behaviour looks from anyone's perspective other than your own. 

You see 'a right to primary, like any other road user'; the driver behind you sees 'a selfish git who thinks he has some god-given right to hog the road'. You see '10 seconds here and 16 seconds there'; the mini-cab driver behind you sees an arrogant twat expecting everyone to go at his pace, and holding him up from making a living. 

Spend your entire time on the road 'knowing my rights', and you're going to wind up a lot of people - and quite possibly wind up in hospital. No-one's saying that's right, but this is the real world. 

Looking back over the last year or so, it seems to me that you have 10 altercations with other road-users for every one of mine - and I spend an hour a day on some of the busiest, most fraught roads in the country. Now why do you suppose that is?

And which of us, I wonder, is doing more to ease or inflame the tensions between cyclists and other road-users?

'significant stress'? Not me, mate. I'm mellow. Chill.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I think you're a bit quick to dismiss Lee's posts, Mags. Sure, he's a bit in your face, but I think he does have a point if you look beyond that. Would it have cost you anything to slow a little, go secondary to let the car past, and negotiate back to primary? Lee (and I) aren't saying you had to do this, just that it would have been better karma. It was quite a long stretch of wideness from the roundabout, long enough.
> 
> Col and Hippo, yes, agreed totally with you.



 I've mentioned this many times before. I didn't perceive a threat. I have cycled that junction 5 days a week for probably 2 years (didn't take that route at the start). I have never had a car or anything overtake me at that point in such a manner. I did have the incident further along the road with a white van, but my position stopped him passing where it would be most dangerous. 
So I knew a car was behind me, thought I had closed the door and so had no reason (or so I thought) to go into an area that, due to the temperature being -3C at the time (I've looked it up) could have had black ice in it and had me off the bike no matter what speed I slowed down to(remember the thread where Lee suggested I should have spotted black ice?). 

So I perceived no threat. I was wrong. There was some. It happens. I'm human (shocking I know). 

Now I am not going to cycle in secondary on that road in general for reasons that I have mentioned many times in this thread, especially as I have had only 1 real problem in 2 years. Today I took a better primary, and had a car following. No problem. Car overtook 10 seconds later when safe and gave me plenty of room. It works, so long as I take a good primary. Some drivers might get irritated, that is their problem not mine, and that has only happened with one white van over the 2 years.

So what do you say Bentmikey, is 10 seconds till the pinch (remembering that I was cycling a bit slower that day due to the conditions so probably 8 seconds is closer to the norm) really a major hold up?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> Contrary to popular belief, I do not ride everywhere in primary. My videos tend to occur in trouble spots, i.e. areas where conflict occur on my commute. I know them well, as I have used this particular route for 2 years now. This is a possible trouble spot, and as I have just explained in my previous post, I have my reasons for taking primary at this point. On the road coming the other way I take a secondary position all the way along the road, and hold cars up as little as possible.
> 
> As for my 10 seconds here 16 seconds there, I am trying to justify what I did at that moment, to people who are throwing facts figures acusations etc at me. How else whould I defend my actions. Should I just say, I just did, and leave it at that. That would be easy. Instead I try to explain why I did what I did, remembering that I was making decisions within fractions of a second, not the couple of days we have now to look at the footage.
> 
> ...


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> This makes it even worse, you must of seen the cab driver. Did you not assess his speed and then look at the distance to the pinch point and think to yourself I may be holding someone up here I'll move across?
> 
> Even in primary the guy managed to overtake, which leads me to the point I made at the very start, if there was room to overtake you in primary (albeit a little closely) then there is ample room and width of the road to accomodate you in secondary and the cab driver passing you giving you room.



Read my previous posts lee. All the answers are there. That is why I consider you a troll. You ask questions which I have already answered and go around in circles, just to keep the argument going. You never move on.


----------



## rnscotch (7 Jan 2009)

Mag did you do something to lee in a previous life?...


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Yeah you was so chilled you decided to hit the side of his car.
> 
> That's three vids now in about 5 weeks? You still think you are chilled?




Umm err, a car passes within cms of me at speed. Mmm will it irritate me just a little bit...mmmm, that's a difficult one. Following my original rant was I chilled. Yes indeedy. That's what I am saying. Incidents can rattle me, and just about everone on the planet I would suggest (not you of course!), butI don't hold on to anger etc. Again, just ask anyone who has met me, am I the sort of person who needs chilling?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

rnscotch said:


> Mag did you do something to lee in a previous life?...




I do wonder!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Yeah you was so chilled you decided to hit the side of his car.
> 
> That's three vids now in about 5 weeks? You still think you are chilled?




Oh just to add, when I get a chance I will be putting up another video. It will be about a very poorly designed cycle lane that has just been painted by the local council. I think it is dangerous and needs removing. So it will be 4 videos in 5 weeks. I must be suffering terrible rage!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Do yout think that hitting the side of the car was a good example of chilled behaviour?



Lee, for goodness sake, read my post! It was a reaction, instant and not thought out. Sure it didn't help, but it was a reaction. Do you have reactions.

Now go and read my previous post to you. Bejezzus!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

LOL! Oh aye, I am really worried about what the police would say. I react to a car within cms of knocking me down by putting my hand out as a very normal reaction to thinking you are about to be hit. Yes that really does undermine all of my campaigning. 

So bentmikey, can you seriously not agree that this is trolling?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> Hitting the car is defo wrong, but it happens to the best of us at times, or are you trying to claim you've never hit the side of a car, Lee? I think the same of your post as of sweetpea's above, btw.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> So what do you say Bentmikey, is 10 seconds till the pinch (remembering that I was cycling a bit slower that day due to the conditions so probably 8 seconds is closer to the norm) really a major hold up?



10 seconds shows that it's easily long enough for you to move over and slow to let him pass. I think you need to accept that you could have done that, rather than defending yourself into a corner. And that's coming from someone who rides more assertively than most people I've ridden with, I believe.


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 Jan 2009)

How you figger, BM? How can you possibly know, given that you've not the slightest idea how many 'altercations' I have?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

Because even the tamest and least confrontational cyclists I know have far more incidents than you claim, and that's in London and surrounds. You're either testiculating [1] or you're setting the bar at which you call "incident" far higher than magnatom's videos.

[1] Waving your arms around and talking bollocks. (c) Adam Hart Davis, I think.


----------



## rnscotch (7 Jan 2009)

wow this is still going on... pmsl some people need to get a life. I cant believe you are still entertaining these folk mag.


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 Jan 2009)

Gosh, you must know some very fierce 'tame' riders BM. 

Maybe I'll try it. Grrrr.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> 10 seconds shows that it's easily long enough for you to move over and slow to let him pass. I think you need to accept that you could have done that, rather than defending yourself into a corner. And that's coming from someone who rides more assertively than most people I've ridden with, I believe.



I'm backing nowhere BM. -3C, that road isn't used much and this could have black ice on it. I also perceived no threat. So why, in this very situation, should I have moved over?


swee'pea99, I've previously calculated in the past that I have incidents on 3% of my commutes (remember a lot of my videos are of numpty cyclists, people weeing on cycle lanes etc). So your perception of me is wrong. In the 3 months leading up to this incident, I had one door open on me, and one taxi swerve a bit towards me (possibly accidental) both of which I dealt with appropriately.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

rnscotch said:


> wow this is still going on... pmsl some people need to get a life. I cant believe you are still entertaining these folk mag.



I hate loose ends. I hate people thinking that I run away from an argument just because it gets difficult (and this hasn't been difficult). My reputation (aye right!) depends on the fact that I try and be honest, I try and answer my critics and I admit mistakes. Now I have in the past admitted mistakes, and even here admit I could have ridden differently (more primary), but I have yet to find any argument that has convinced me that secondary in THIS particular situation would have been better. I am contrary to what has been suggested here more thatn willing to get out of the way, when I think it is needed and in my and others best interests as this video demonstrates.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

Because that would be careful and tolerant riding, and letting others past when you safely can, as is required in the highway code. I think you're making far too much of imagining it's not safe to be riding in secondary there.

Sure, you have every right to own the lane if you feel you need to, but that's not what makes others lives' pleasant when it's unnecessary. Like I said earlier, you either need to ride faster to justify your use of primary (and take a stronger primary rather than this half primary), or to ride slower and go secondary. I'm currently getting the impression of aggressive cyclist asserting rights beyond what is necessary, rather than fair cyclist and tolerance.

OTOH I'd be the first to admit it's easy in hindsight, and that actually doing it yourself without the benefit of video is nowhere near so easy. I guess what I'm saying is that I'd take the lesson from this experience for future rides through here.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> The cyclist that overtook you in the tunnel? Would you not class that as an incident?




Not really, no. I posted it because he was being a numpty, not because I felt in any danger. In the tunnel he would likely be the one who would have been hit by any oncoming cyclist not me.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> ...As it is, the cabbie will be down the local cafe in the morning having a laugh about the cyclist who thought he owned the road and then hit my car as I squeezed past him teaching him a lesson.
> 
> *You have done yourself no favours or any other cyclist for that matter by reacting the way you did.*


Oooh, nice one Lee... you do us all so many favours with your riding-with-no-lights and RLJing though, don't you?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Sure, you have every right to own the lane if you feel you need to, but that's not what makes others lives' pleasant when it's unnecessary. Like I said earlier, you either need to ride faster to justify your use of primary (and take a stronger primary rather than this half primary), or to ride slower and go secondary. I'm currently getting the impression of aggressive cyclist asserting rights beyond what is necessary, rather than fair cyclist and tolerance.



That's your impression fair enough, but as you point out later you are analysing a split second decision, so going into such detail is a bit disingenuous. 

In other situations and other road conditions of course I would be willing to move out the way. See my previous post and the video it contains. I have done it before and I would do it again. However, look back at all the posts, they are with regards to this incident, and in this situation with the information I had at my disposal I would not have ridden in the secondary position. With hindsight, maybe, but as I have stressed often, -3C possible black ice, so possibly not.

Also I probably haven't stressed this before, but on my first look back upon leaving the roundabout he would have been a distance back on the roundabout. Most cars on that roundabout continue onto the next turn off and so it was at that time likely that he was not coming my way. So I had no reason to pull over at that time. Within 7 seconds he was upon me. So if I was to then decide to move over, it would have been a quick change of direction, which in these conditions would be unwise, IMO.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> The occurence of people riding without lights and RLJing far exceeds people hitting the side of a car because they have had a close overtake.




Precisely why it is more of a menace!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> The occurence of people riding without lights and RLJing far exceeds people hitting the side of a car because they have had a close overtake.


So it's okay to join them as the motons will already be angry with cyclists about that... another one will make no difference?? Interesting 'logic'.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Jan 2009)

Back to the OP's vid though...

I have to say that it *does* look like a nice wide road coming from the roundabout, so maybe a slightly less in-your-face position may have been fine.... but, I don't know the area and that it's difficult to say what I *would* have done if I'd been there myself just from a video. Mags rides this road regularly and knows the layout and the conditions. If he feels it is fine to ride strong primary all the way from the roundabout then I accept this.

If the road is such a wide road though, why didn't the driver overtake earlier? 

If he couldn't, due to having to accelerate up to speed, then Mags clearly didn't slow him down so his positioning is irrelevant.

As has been said before, the driver is clearly a c*ck who should not be behind the wheel of any vehicle on the road.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Not really a 4.5yr could work it out.
> 
> RLJing and riding without lights is a frequent occurence thereofre has become ''accepted'' by many although not condoned.
> 
> However smacking the side of a vehicle just because of a close overtake would still be viewed as aggressive behaviour and out of line.


Aaaah, okay... so if we all hit cars it becomes more acceptable... smashing, at least I know now.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> However smacking the side of a vehicle just because of a close overtake would still be viewed as aggressive behaviour and out of line.



....and you speak for...?


----------



## mr_hippo (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Oh bejeezus! It's happened. I've attracted all the forum trolls at once!  (ok a few are missing but they'll be here shortly!)
> 
> For the record, Lee, col and Mr Hippo, on every single occasion that they have ever posted on one of my threads have told me that I have done this wrong, done that wrong, etc. That is the only time that they ever post on my threads. I have never once had a comment like, good work Mag, or nice one mag or good point mag. Now I know not everyone agrees with me. Fair enough, but most reasoned people at least accept some of my arguments, agree that there are reasons for me doing this and that etc. However, there are those that only ever seem to be negative.


Were you or are you starved of affection/attention? You want posters to say “Mag, or nice one mag or good point mag” – sorry but I can’t. You are an example of how not to cycle. Most of us who cycle have been in close overtakes; we may mutter a bit but then we forget it. So why can’t you? You put yourself in situations and then have the gall to blame others.


magnatom said:


> As for full palm on window, are you blind Mr Hippo. Look at the picture which maz posted. It is from the frame before the picture I show at the end of my video. You can just make out the shadow of my hand on the car window. Now look at the picture in my video. The shadow has disappeared. Why, because my hand is on the window. Also why do you think the car stopped? Did it maybe have something to do with my hand hitting his window perhaps?


Stop your video at 59 seconds (The car is stopped), your wrist is slightly bent but there is no way in that position that you could touch the window with your full palm. From the poison of your arm when you touched the car, for your palm to be in contact with the window then your wrist would have to bent almost double and all fingers would be visible. Can you show me where your wrist is bent back?
Stop the video at 1:27; now compare the length of your fingers at 59 seconds where your wrist is bent 

As for the video mentioned in post 139, this shows me your attitude. "There's a van behimd me, parked cars to my left and oncoming traffix - I'm not going to ease off and let the van driver pass. This will make great footage on youtube!"


----------



## Eat MY Dust (7 Jan 2009)

Hi Mags (hope you had a nice Christmas)

I can't be bothered reading all the pish, but it was indeed a very close overtake. I'd like to say that road postioning shouldn't really be an issue here, you were in front, that's all that matters. It would appear that there are a few people on here that believe the myth that if you are faster than the thing in front of you, then you have right of way!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Jan 2009)

Mr Hippo, you are a tw@t. 

Carry on.


----------



## Bollo (7 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> From the poison of your arm...



Wow! He can shoot poison out of his arm like some snake/spider hybrid mutant. You been standing to close to the magnets again, Maggers?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> Were you or are you starved of affection/attention? You want posters to say “Mag, or nice one mag or good point mag” – sorry but I can’t. You are an example of how not to cycle. Most of us who cycle have been in close overtakes; we may mutter a bit but then we forget it. So why can’t you? You put yourself in situations and then have the gall to blame others.





LOL! 



> Stop your video at 59 seconds (The car is stopped), your wrist is slightly bent but there is no way in that position that you could touch the window with your full palm. From the poison of your arm when you touched the car, for your palm to be in contact with the window then your wrist would have to bent almost double and all fingers would be visible. Can you show me where your wrist is bent back?
> Stop the video at 1:27; now compare the length of your fingers at 59 seconds where your wrist is bent




Turn up the volume on your computer. Go on. Have a listen. I just did, and you can actually hear the dull thud as my hand hits the window. Go on.

I look forward to you explanation of what the dull thud was. Perhaps the car just happened to run over an alien from outer space just as it was trying to make contact with the human race!  



> As for the video mentioned in post 139, this shows me your attitude. "There's a van behimd me, parked cars to my left and oncoming traffix - I'm not going to ease off and let the van driver pass. This will make great footage on youtube!"


And where do I say any of this? I did ease off, moved over and let the van pass. Which planet are you on Mr Hippo? Perhaps the little aliens planet!


----------



## johnnyh (7 Jan 2009)

I am not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of the cyclist, but it is clearly a dangerous piece of driving by the private hire vehicle, and surely the duty of care from the driver to other road users was ignored.

as for hitting the car... I'd have to say I think that is a little daft since the driver was clearly aggressive to start with and putting yourself in further danger isnt clever.

I do except in the heat of the moment we all react though.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

LOL at Mr Hippo, who if I recall correctly, edited out a bit of his video showing him about to undertake a big coach.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

I think Lee is right about hitting a car - touch their vehicle, and it almost always brings out the worst in people. It seems to be considered along the lines of assault. How many times have we seen posts about massive road rage after a cyclist touched someone's vehicle?

I know it's wrong, and I try really hard not to do it. Occasionally I fail, mind.

p.s. Lee, have you ever considered not being so confrontational? It takes away most of the value of your posts, and IMO it's clearly why so many on here have no respect for you. (And yes, I'm sure I'm not one to be talking, LOL!).


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

johnnyh said:


> I am not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of the cyclist, but it is clearly a dangerous piece of driving by the private hire vehicle, and surely the duty of care from the driver to other road users was ignored.
> 
> as for hitting the car... I'd have to say I think that is a little daft since the driver was clearly aggressive to start with and putting yourself in further danger isnt clever.
> 
> I do except in the heat of the moment we all react though.



Of course it was daft, but it was purely a reaction to something coming towards you, i.e. a push it away response. Of course I need to work at my upper body strength to be able to push cars away!


----------



## johnnyh (7 Jan 2009)

get pumping them weights fella


----------



## shunter (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Anyone with a bit of common sense, there was no need for you to hit the car. Anyone can see that.



Common sense would tell you that the car should have not been close enough for Mag to be able to touch it. Common sense would also tell you that anyones natural instinct to something getting far too close is to push it away. 

As for all the prim cycling techniques being bandied about - he is entitled to safeguard his life on the road and then worry about pretty cycling. The driver was completely in the wrong as he did not have the space to safely pass. I reckon he only stopped anyway because he thought he had hit Mag. The car driver should have allowed space for Mag in case he had to swerve to avoid a pothole or object. 

The main point is that Mag was looking forward and changing his position in response to potential dangers that he could forsee ie looking ahead. Taking up the primary or secondary position should have be seen as an alert to the driver behind that the cyclist in front needed more space due to a change in the road but to be honest if he had not already seen that then he had no regard for the cyclist and certainly wasn't looking ahead.

During my advanced bike test I moved slightly over to the left to let a speeding motorist pass safely and without hindrance. My examiner - a senior class 1 police motorcyclist - told me off saying I was paying taxes to be on the road as well and I was totally in the right to maintain a safe position of my own. Go figure.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

Clearly you do care though Lee, enough that you were motivated to come in for that video ride, and to be chuffed when you convinced me you were a good rider.

All I'm really saying is that when you do make a good point, it's instantly dismissed because of the way you write on here.


----------



## goo_mason (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I tell it how it is, if people take offence that then I'm sorry. I have a rough idea of the people that have no respect for me on here and I could not really give a shoot about it or them.



Respect has to be earned though, Lee. As you've admitted yourself, you aren't the most tactful person and you usually post short, blunt comments (usually of the critical variety). The people I've grown to respect on these forums over the two and a bit years I've been on them are those who at least show a little humanity in their postings. By that, I don't mean that they're never critical or because I always agree with everything they say, but they're usually a little more tactful, or elucidate on their point - and when they're helpful, it's obvious that they're being helpful - rather than a suggestion that can come across to many people as more of a criticism.

I do acknowledge that you have useful and helpful points to make; it's just that sometimes you've annoyed people in the way you come across - and you know what they say about first impressions !


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Clearly you do care though Lee, enough that you were motivated to come in for that video ride, and to be chuffed when you convinced me you were a good rider.



Yes but it is blatantly obvious that he does not care much for me. Fair enough. Doesn't bother me. However, what it does do is taint all of his comments about my cycling. As I have said, I cannot recollect at point, one positive comment about me or my cycling from Lee, or one admission on any point, that I might be right (Please correct me if I am wrong!). Do you really think my cycling is that bad Lee, or do you just dislike me for some other reason?


----------



## goo_mason (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I came on that video ride for me, to see how I ride not for no-one else.




Oh dear - see ? That's exactly what I mean. Blunt, and it sounds like you're trying to have a go at BM. Perhaps you are - in which case, that's not the best way to win friends and influence people....


----------



## jamesgibby (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> As I have said before there is a fine line between holding on your own position on the road and being a hazard when there is no need.
> quote]
> 
> Under normal conditions I would agree with you but at -3 you ride to the conditions. Given that it was -3 it makes the cab drivers driving even worse.
> ...


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2009)

17 pages..come on stop fighting.....

Mags - you should have booted the car.....now for those SPD shoes with screw in steel studs (like footie boots)....or carbon soled ones.....

Was close indeed.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I came on that video ride for me, to see how I ride not for no-one else.




I'll admit your riding was fine in that video, if a little more risk taking than mine. However, having someone follow you once is very different from posting incidents that happen (i.e. where there is a real test of cycling skills) to you whilst cycling.

I'm not saying that you couldn't deal with incidents, but it is in these situations where your skills are really tested. Some may say I have some riding skills, some may disagree. However, I am very open to REASONED criticism, not criticism, which appears to come out of pure dislike for me personally.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

fossyant said:


> 17 pages..come on stop fighting.....
> 
> Mags - you should have booted the car.....now for those SPD shoes with screw in steel studs (like footie boots)....or carbon soled ones.....
> 
> Was close indeed.



Ah, but I would not have had video footage of my foot and Mr Hippo would have had a better case for no contact being made. Keep up fossy old boy!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I don't dislike you at all mag, after all I have never even met you. However, I will comment on your riding after all you have posted a vid and this is a cycling forum where people have different views.
> 
> My opinion may differ from the norm however this backed up by my experience on the road as a rider and driver. Remember it is only my opinion, you can take at face value and dismiss it or discuss/debate it.



Consider it dismissed


----------



## Monkey Spanner (7 Jan 2009)

You are entitled to post your clips I suppose but don't come over all indignant when someone decides not to kiss your arse/stroke your ego by criticising your actions.

If you don't want adverse comments then don't post.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

Monkey Spanner said:


> You are entitled to post your clips I suppose but don't come over all indignant when someone decides not to kiss your arse/stroke your ego by criticising your actions.
> 
> If you don't want adverse comments then don't post.





Mate, have a look at the comments I receive on youtube. I've been called every name under the sun, been threatened even had comments about my family and wife! I can assure you I am used to people not kissing my arse and stroking my ego (but it is huge, you should come for a stroke!). 

And I am glad that you have come to the conclusion that I am entitled to post my clips (you suppose!). As a result, I shall continue!


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 Jan 2009)

_"I don't find Magna indignant"_

And I don't find Lee trolly. I think he makes points that need to be made without pulling his punches, and that ruffles feathers, but so be it. Don't forget that this whole 18 page discussion effectively began when Lee was the first to step out of line after a page and a half of 'ooh poor you, what a swine' consensus and say 'well, hang on just a minute...' Thereby, in my view at least, stimulating a debate, which seems worthwhile. Can't see much point being here if all anyone does is agree how beastly non-cyclists are (while we, of course, are beyond reproach).


----------



## Monkey Spanner (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Mate, have a look at the comments I receive on youtube. I've been called every name under the sun, been threatened even had comments about my family and wife! I can assure you I am used to people not kissing my arse and stroking my ego (but it is huge, you should come for a stroke!).
> 
> And I am glad that you have come to the conclusion that I am entitled to post my clips (you suppose!). As a result, I shall continue!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> If the road is such a wide road though, why didn't the driver overtake earlier?
> 
> If he couldn't, due to having to accelerate up to speed, then Mags clearly didn't slow him down so his positioning is irrelevant.


Anyone???


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Ah, but I would not have had video footage of my foot and Mr Hippo would have had a better case for no contact being made. Keep up fossy old boy!



This thread is moving faster than I can on my bike......I blame not keeping up on my knock on the bonce.............


----------



## rnscotch (7 Jan 2009)

Monkey Spanner said:


>



Ohh dear all one can say is.....


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Anyone???



I thought this would have been obvious, but it might not have been. We were coming off a roundabout (fairly tight) so he would be accelerating away from it. To stay behind me he would only have to stop accelerating, not to slow down as such. I reckon when he passed me I would have been doing about 18mph. Not amazingly fast, but not too slow either. the speed limit is 30mph for reference.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

rnscotch said:


> Ohh dear all one can say is.....




True, but he is entitled to his opinion. He thinks I am attention seeking, and in need of some publicity. Fair enough. 

What he doesn't know is that if something I and my fellow collegues are working on at work at the moment works as we hope it will, I will get much greater fame and fortune from that. Of course if I told you what it was, I'd have to shoot you!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Jan 2009)

[quote name='swee'pea99']_"I don't find Magna indignant"_

And I don't find Lee trolly. I think he makes points that need to be made without pulling his punches, and that ruffles feathers, but so be it. Don't forget that this whole 18 page discussion effectively began when Lee was the first to step out of line after a page and a half of 'ooh poor you, what a swine' consensus and say 'well, hang on just a minute...' Thereby, in my view at least, stimulating a debate, which seems worthwhile. Can't see much point being here if all anyone does is agree how beastly non-cyclists are (while we, of course, are beyond reproach).[/QUOTE]

+1. One of the things I don't like about this forum is that anyone who posts anything even slightly off message usually gets dismissed as a troll, no matter how good the points they're making are. It's better now Spindrift is gone but it still happens.


----------



## johnnyh (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> What he doesn't know is that if something I and my fellow collegues are working on at work at the moment works as we hope it will, I will get much greater fame and fortune from that. Of course if I told you what it was, I'd have to shoot you!




is it the missing bit to make the LHC work?


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Jan 2009)

BM did you post that second vid of your ride with Lee?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> +1. One of the things I don't like about this forum is that anyone who posts anything even slightly off message usually gets dismissed as a troll, no matter how good the points they're making are. It's better now Spindrift is gone but it still happens.




RT, I'm not trying to stir, but in your comments, do you mean me? I am always open to critisism. Otherwise, why would I post my videos. I certainly don't expect a lot of back slapping! 

Lee may well make some valid points under all of the chaff, but he constantly picks and picks and picks. The example of looking back is a good one. He claims I didn't. I prove I did. He then claims that I couldn't have looked right, I explain that I knew that the car was there, but at the first look, did not in my opinion look like it posed a threat. He then goes back later to claim that I hadn't looked correctly, when I have since suggested that I had seen him, and my mistake was not seeing the threat. This goes on and on. He does this with the hitting as well. I explain it was a reaction, but that isn't good enough!

That in my book is trolling. 

Look back and pre lee threads. On many occasions, I have disagreed with other posters on here and (apart from Lee, Mr Hippo and Col), we have always had good debate, not slagging matches!


----------



## mr_hippo (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> LOL at Mr Hippo, who if I recall correctly, edited out a bit of his video showing him about to undertake a big coach.


Are you referring to Bqangkok Traffic Part ! (
View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=99XaRuD7Y1U)?
I also posted the uncut version -
View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cNiJhk-lG58

Have you ever cycled in Bangkok? Are you familiar with traffic patterns here?
Those lights (Lat Phrao Road/Chok Chai IV) have a countdown timer and I had enough time to get to the ASL before the lights changed.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> Are you referring to Bqangkok Traffic Part ! (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=99XaRuD7Y1U)? I also posted the uncut version -
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cNiJhk-lG58
> 
> Have you ever cycled in Bangkok? Are you familiar with traffic patterns here?
> Those lights (Lat Phrao Road/Chok Chai IV) have a countdown timer and I had enough time to get to the ASL before the lights changed.





Have you ever cycled in Glasgow? Are you familiar with the traffic patterns here......


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)




----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

Well, you need to be careful how you write your questions as these two (second one isn't even a question!)
*
Would you not check over your shoulder though?

**No need, look over your shoulder

*strongly suggest that you are claiming that I didn't look over my shoulder.


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (7 Jan 2009)

*IT'S GOT TO BE A DANGEROUS DRIVING CHARGE*

Does the Driver say you were in the middle of the road ? That's what it sounds like anyway! This means he admits to seeing you but still deliberately trys to push passed head on to the other driver knowing he stands a chance of either hitting you or the on coming car. That's got to be a dangerous driving charge, this was not accidental, It was a deliberately dangerous act. I accept that all of us make mistakes but get rally pissed off when someone deliberately puts your life at risk. If I was you I would contact The council,police and the Taxi firm and the local paper, although I really doubt the police or the taxi firm will be interested. ( If the police are anything like they are here anyway)


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> BM did you post that second vid of your ride with Lee?



Never got round to it mate. TBH it's mostly more of the same, except for some bits where Lee couldn't keep up.


----------



## 4F (7 Jan 2009)

Mags if you just cycled a little faster then you would not have had this problem


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Mags if you just cycled a little faster then you would not have had this problem




Aye, this is why I have my heart set on a new non-lead plated bike!


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Never got round to it mate. TBH it's mostly more of the same, except for some bits where Lee couldn't keep up.





Those will be the downhill sections then?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> I thought this would have been obvious, but it might not have been. We were coming off a roundabout (fairly tight) so he would be accelerating away from it. To stay behind me he would only have to stop accelerating, not to slow down as such. I reckon when he passed me I would have been doing about 18mph. Not amazingly fast, but not too slow either. the speed limit is 30mph for reference.


That's kind of my point - if he desperately wanted to overtake he had the space (it's a wide road) and the time before the pinch point... why *wait* until you're at the pinch point before attempting it? If he had only just got to the point of being able to overtake you there then clearly you weren't holding him up at all and he was just a tosser. If he'd been able to overtake sooner on the wider bit then why not do it there... oh yeah, he's a tosser.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> That's kind of my point - if he desperately wanted to overtake he had the space (it's a wide road) and the time before the pinch point... why *wait* until you're at the pinch point before attempting it? If he had only just got to the point of being able to overtake you there then clearly you weren't holding him up at all and he was just a tosser. If he'd been able to overtake sooner on the wider bit then why not do it there... oh yeah, he's a tosser.




I hadn't thought of that. Very true. Yes he only manages to catch me as I approach the pinch, so no matter what road position I had, he would have squeezed me. Good point. Oh well, what was the last 18 pages for then? Oh, magnatom bashing, the new sport!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

The magnatom bashing game (my real name is Dave/David). 

http://www.tredz.co.uk/game.asp


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> I hadn't thought of that. Very true. Yes he only manages to catch me as I approach the pinch, so no matter what road position I had, he would have squeezed me.Oh, m Good point. Oh well, what was the last 18 pages for then?



I said all this in post 103 btw!
Keep up!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> I said all this in post 103 btw!
> Keep up!




Oh no you didn't! Ok, maybe you did, but not in language I could understand!


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> *Had he taken a secondary position it would've been likely the cab might just as easily made the same move as Mag entered the pinch point.*




Ok, so I'm missing a 'have' between the 'easily' and 'made'.

Tsk!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> Stop your video at 59 seconds (The car is stopped), your wrist is slightly bent but there is no way in that position that you could touch the window with your full palm. From the poison of your arm when you touched the car, for your palm to be in contact with the window then your wrist would have to bent almost double and all fingers would be visible. Can you show me where your wrist is bent back?
> Stop the video at 1:27; now compare the length of your fingers at 59 seconds where your wrist is bent


Do you know what. I just went back and re-read this post. Mr hippo, I am suggesting that my palm hits the car as it drives past me (47-48 seconds), not when we were stopped having a chat!  Ooops!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

Ok, that is my letter sent. I'll let you know what comes of it.


----------



## goo_mason (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I thinks that's a bit harsh. I'm merely saying that I came on that ride for me and no-one else.



Which is why I responded the way I did - the way you phrase / write things can give many people completely the wrong impression. What you wrote there could be taken as you having a huffy dig at BM. If someone said something like that to me, it would sound like they were having a strop (and many people on these forums must have had arguments with someone of the opposite sex at some point in their lives when they would have had the phrase, "I didn't do it for you, I did it for ME !!!", hurled back at them )

If you interpreted what I wrote was harsh, then maybe you can now see how some people can interpret your responses sometimes ? I'm not trying to have a go - merely trying to let you know how the way you come across sometimes can really get people's backs up.


Now. Onto to the subject of pic the new boy posted... *** shiver *** ... I've now gone right off the thought of eating my dinner


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> Are you referring to Bqangkok Traffic Part ! (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=99XaRuD7Y1U)? I also posted the uncut version -
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cNiJhk-lG58
> 
> Have you ever cycled in Bangkok? Are you familiar with traffic patterns here?
> Those lights (Lat Phrao Road/Chok Chai IV) have a countdown timer and I had enough time to get to the ASL before the lights changed.




Wohoo been there and it's just like that.

True what he says about the countdown on the lights.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> P.S
> 
> Are those that are suggesting that I held him up seriously suggesting that the 10 seconds that it took me to leave the roundabout and get to the pinch point, or the 16 seconds that it takes me from leaving the roundabout to get to a point in the road where a safe overtake could occur where excessive?
> 
> If you do then you must suffer from significant stress when driving with all the hold ups on the road. Might I suggest beta blockers...



Try a dose of common sense,we all know the time of the holdup isnt really the issue,the issue is that we all know how drivers react even if its a couple of seconds,but you continue to cycle this way,even though its obviously caused danger to you and oncoming traffic.
And i see your still calling people names when they have an opinion,thats more trollish than anyone else here.


----------



## mr_hippo (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Do you know what. I just went back and re-read this post. Mr hippo, I am suggesting that my palm hits the car as it drives past me (47-48 seconds), not when we were stopped having a chat!  Ooops!


How is "My palm made full contact with the car window." a suggestion?
When the car was stopped, your wrist was bent and in that position there is no way that your palm could make full contact with the car window. When you allegedly made contact with the car, your wrist was not bent so where was the full contact?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> How is "My palm made full contact with the car window." a suggestion?
> When the car was stopped, your wrist was bent and in that position there is no way that your palm could make full contact with the car window. When you allegedly made contact with the car, your wrist was not bent so where was the full contact?



Mr Hippo you've got completely confused. I am not claiming that when the car was stopped that my hand made contact. It didn't. I was just gesticualting. I made contact at approximately 47-48 seconds into the video when the car was driving past me. That's where the drama is!


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Try a dose of common sense,we all know the time of the holdup isnt really the issue,the issue is that we all know how drivers react even if its a couple of seconds,but you continue to cycle this way,even though its obviously caused danger to you and oncoming traffic.
> And i see your still calling people names when they have an opinion,thats more trollish than anyone else here.



I won't call you a name. I'll just draw a wee portrait of you...


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> I won't call you a name. I'll just draw a wee portrait of you...




There you go,your trying to get a reaction to your calling,im sure thats one of the classic descriptions for trolls
So mag,do you think putting other peoples safety at risk is worth holding primary for when there really is no need?


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

*How often have you been overtaken impatiently, only to pass the same car a couple of minutes later? It happens to me a couple of times a week at least.*

Yeah,what is that about?


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

It's braindead stuff.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

> Follow that line though and you're accepting that bikes shouldn't be on the road because they hold cars up.
> 
> How often have you been overtaken impatiently, only to pass the same car a couple of minutes later? It happens to me a couple of times a week at least.
> 
> And as to the 'causing danger' bit, Mag hasn't caused anyone any danger. He didn't make the driver do anything. In the same way that cyclists don't cause heart attacks in drivers, they don't make them choose to carry out dangerous manoeuvres like the one in the vid.




What makes you assume,i say ASSUME that i accept your rediculous statement that bikes shouldnt be on the roads?Its about being sensible and courtious to other road users,i dont know about you,well i probably do,but i would have been straight into secondary off that rb,and if i hadnt i would have expected somesort of reaction from drivers im holding up for nothing.
Mag has caused that situation because he held his obstruction too early for too long,he knows how cars react to that,just think back to all his troubles because of his riding style and report techniques,it says a lot to what his cycling style is like for others.


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> So mag,do you think putting other peoples safety at risk is worth holding primary for when there really is no need?



Classic col. 

As we say in Glasgow, onyerselbigman, or possibly more appropriately watchooterrapolis.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)




----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Classic col.
> 
> As we say in Glasgow, onyerselbigman, or possibly more appropriately watchooterrapolis.




So you dont want to answer? why not mag?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Mag has caused that situation because he held his obstruction too early for too long,he knows how cars react to that,just think back to all his troubles because of his riding style and report techniques,it says a lot to what his cycling style is like for others.


*
Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.*


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


>




Im only asking mag a question,so there is no choice really


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> There you go,your trying to get a reaction to your calling,im sure thats one of the classic descriptions for trolls
> So mag,*do you think putting other peoples safety at risk is worth holding primary for when there really is no need*?


WTF??? Have you been at the drugs again, Col. Mags is now putting other people in danger is he??? I despair....


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2009)

Can you kind people *please* stop responding to Col, or at least don't bloody quote him. Eventually I'm going to ignore both the trolls and the troll feeders, but since some of the responders are moderators or admins, I can't unless I leave the forum.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Im only asking mag a question,so there is no choice really



Where is lee tonight?


----------



## magnatom (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Can you kind people *please* stop responding to Col, or at least don't bloody quote him. Eventually I'm going to ignore both the trolls and the troll feeders, but since some of the responders are moderators or admins, I can't unless I leave the forum.



How dare you question my posting technique. I am a dangerous man you know.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Can you kind people *please* stop responding to Col, or at least don't bloody quote him. Eventually I'm going to ignore both the trolls and the troll feeders, but since some of the responders are moderators or admins, I can't unless I leave the forum.



Oh dear,im very sorry im putting my opinion across,and im not surprised by your reaction,so what would you like us to do if we dissagree with something bent?If you can come up with a good answer i will abide by it,so what do you think?


----------



## mr_hippo (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Mr Hippo you've got completely confused. I am not claiming that when the car was stopped that my hand made contact. It didn't. I was just gesticualting. I made contact at approximately 47-48 seconds into the video when the car was driving past me. That's where the drama is!



From the position of your hand when the car passed you, there is no way that your palm was in full contact with the window. I was just using the 'stop' footage to show the bend in your wrist and to compare it with the 47-48 second mark. Your fingertips may have touched the car when it was passing but not full contact with your palm!


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> WTF??? Have you been at the drugs again, Col. Mags is now putting other people in danger is he??? I despair....



He did yes,its too easy to blame others for being impatient when your holding them up knowingly ,and knowing the reaction that could possibly follow.But it seems that doesnt matter,as he has a right to be there doesnt he.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> How dare you question my posting technique. I am a dangerous man you know.





So you DO realise that

Are you answering my question then?


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

I haven't got anyone on ignore so what is this all about?


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

> I am here, but only for about 20 mins then I have to go back to work.


Time for some trolling then?




> Mags position on the road when that car overtook.



Yes he's on a wind-up.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Not at all. How have I trolled in this thread, someone please tell me.




The same as me i think,you dissagreed with some one


----------



## goo_mason (7 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> From the position of your hand when the car passed you, there is no way that your palm was in full contact with the window. I was just using the 'stop' footage to show the bend in your wrist and to compare it with the 47-48 second mark. Your fingertips may have touched the car when it was passing but not full contact with your palm!




He must have damn hefty fingers then from the sound of that contact.... I don't remember them looking like that when I met him last Sept though.

As my old granny used to say, some people would start a fight in an empty room


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Not at all. How have I trolled in this thread, someone please tell me.



Just testing.



> As my old granny used to say, some people would start a fight in an empty room



You mean padded cell.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> There you go,your trying to get a reaction to your calling,im sure thats one of the classic descriptions for trolls
> So mag,do you think putting other peoples safety at risk is worth holding primary for when there really is no need?





col said:


> Oh dear,im very sorry im putting my opinion across,and im not surprised by your reaction,so what would you like us to do if we dissagree with something bent?If you can come up with a good answer i will abide by it,so what do you think?




Two questions for two of you,are you going to answer?


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

BM can't see you apparently.


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> BM can't see you apparently.




Oh i see He is blocking again 
Some one better quote me or i may never get an answer of him now

How about you mag?are you blocking or answering?


----------



## mr_hippo (7 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> I haven't got anyone on ignore so what is this all about?



The ignore facility is the internet forum's equivalent of a 5 year old putting their fingers in the ears, dancing round and singing "la la la la la la la! and is used by posters who have the mentality of 5 year olds


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Oh i see He is blocking again
> Some one better quote me or i may never get an answer of him now
> 
> How about you mag?are you blocking or answering?



Nah I won't quote you.



mr_hippo said:


> The ignore facility is the internet forum's equivalent of a 5 year old putting their fingers in the ears, dancing round and singing "la la la la la la la! and is used by posters who have the mentality of 5 year olds



I know that I just don't see the point of putting people on ignore.If it continues I reckon some people won't see any other posts.




BentMikey said:


> Can you kind people *please* stop responding to Col, or at least don't bloody quote him. Eventually I'm going to ignore both the trolls and the troll feeders, but since some of the responders are moderators or admins, I can't unless I leave the forum.




^^^^^
This?


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2009)

Oh bugger...I do believe Col lives within a short distance of me...I was warned last year....

TBH...All Mags does is post his view of close passes..and they are close...so what... it's good evidence.....

I get close passes, but I'll also pass a car like this.... if there is limited room...erm !!!

At least the driver has seen Mags.....but it's way too close........and he was passed pretty slowly - so I'd be tempted to pop a rattle on the roof.....

Close passes don't bother me day to day, but I've been on the receiving end of total 'don't look or look don't see' twice recently.... one hit, very lucky, one didn't..(but potentially worse). 

Only my instincts prevented it being worse on both occasions...., but on the second one, had he have hit, I'd have been under a car coming the other way...I'd anticipated this... and felt..oh sh1t....straight into crash mode....ease up, go loose expect impact.....let go.................................it didn't.....phew.......

Had this guy hung about I'd have more than slapped his car.... my language was enough to kill a 'prossie' at point blank....

Mags has a cam, he'll show you some moments. My only comments is he doesn't ride aggressively at all, OK, positions himself well but.....

Get yourself well fast dude...get well fit..... get a faster bike and take the road..... ditch the hi viz yellow stuff and ride like someone posessed - I get less hastle this way.... only problem is folk don't think you can ride fast and pull out....doh.....

To all........chin up, chill out..stop having a dig over crap...sheesh......a fair few of us have been on the hard end of this sh1t recently - I thought I'd got away with it until just before Xmas...... yeh right....

Itching to ride....temps are up..I'm ready to roll again tomorrow...bring it on !!!!


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

fossyant said:


> Oh bugger...I do believe Col lives within a short distance of me...I was warned last year....
> 
> TBH...All Mags does is post his view of close passes..and they are close...so what... it's good evidence.....
> 
> ...




How short a distance fossyant? I thought i was relatively alone in these parts barring one or two?

Iv noticed your avatar says south manchester? not very close,or am i missing something?


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2009)

Oops sorry dude (col)...it's one of the other stalwarts....memory is fading fella, that knock on my head.......


----------



## col (7 Jan 2009)

fossyant said:


> Oops sorry dude (col)...it's one of the other stalwarts....memory is fading fella, that knock on my head.......



No problemo, I was a little confused there


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2009)

Yup..appols....


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Jan 2009)

You can't reply.BM will get the hump and ban all of us :-(


----------



## MacB (8 Jan 2009)

very interesting read guys, I am genuinely mystified by the metamorphosis that overtakes many drivers. The idea that it's ok to lash out with a vehicle, and not be charged with attempted murder, seems strange. That said I can see the arguement re not antagonising other road users, especially those with the means to take you out. The old 'don't want to be right and dead' applies.

Personally I'd have taken secondary then moved out to primary nearer the pinchpoint. But then I'm not as experienced, confident and am guaranteed to be slower So, for my riding, I think that would have been correct. I do understand the criticism of hitting the car but I'm afraid my reaction may have been much worse. Maybe lack of experience again but the taxi driver would have sorely regretted stopping before my red mist departed.

Not sure on the trolling accusations, if it is, then it seems pretty tame. But then I'm pretty placid at a keyboard it's only behind the wheel of a car I become enraged


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Jan 2009)

Hi MacBludgeon

Can't remember seeing you here before (tho' I see you have 60-odd posts to your name) - just wanted to say, excellent signature!


----------



## MacB (8 Jan 2009)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Hi MacBludgeon

Can't remember seeing you here before (tho' I see you have 60-odd posts to your name) - just wanted to say, excellent signature![/quote]

Ta, yep new but gobby, at least I am on other forums, probably too old to change that habit now. Classic quote, classic movie, dates me pretty well


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Jan 2009)

> Shut up, you Yorkie-eating, bearded, cowboy-hat-wearing, 1-4-for-a-copy cycling-lightweight troll.



Bog off. Bloody Amyo.


----------



## col (8 Jan 2009)

> I don't.
> 
> Whatever situation he caused, he did not cause the actions of the driver. The driver did.




Your contradicting yourself
Of course he is totally blameless for the way people react.Its just coincidence
that he happens to be around when they close pass,sound their horns and threaten him


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Your contradicting yourself
> Of course he is totally blameless for the way people react.Its just coincidence that he happens to be around when they close pass,sound their horns and threaten him


I'm no ornithologist... but am I right in assuming that your avatar is a tit...


----------



## col (8 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I'm no ornithologist... but am I right in assuming that your avatar is a tit...




Your right your not an ornithologist its not a tit.But is yours a thick fish


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Jan 2009)

col said:


> *Your *right *your *not an ornithologist its not a tit.But is yours a thick fish


Yes. Its girth diameter would probably be quite large as it is a cartoon depiction of Carcharodon Carcharias, the Great White Shark. 

And btw... the word is "you're" not "your"...


----------



## col (8 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Yes. Its girth diameter would probably be quite large as it is a cartoon depiction of Carcharodon Carcharias, the Great White Shark.
> 
> And btw... the word is "you're" not "your"...




Oh i does say sory,opalogys too you,shame it doesnt look like a great white even in cartoon form


----------



## Crackle (8 Jan 2009)

I knew this thread had legs, so far it's not disappointing.


----------



## col (8 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Yes. Its girth diameter would probably be quite large as it is a cartoon depiction of Carcharodon Carcharias, the Great White Shark.
> 
> And btw... the word is "you're" not "your"...



Oh and by the way,its by the way,not btw.Tut tut,these bloomin hypocrits eh?


----------



## johnnyh (8 Jan 2009)

oh, I can't let this pass... surely it is it's and not its


----------



## col (8 Jan 2009)

johnnyh said:


> oh, I can't let this pass... surely it is it's and not its



Oh bugger


----------



## johnnyh (8 Jan 2009)

hahaha ouch me sides


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Jan 2009)

No, I think "btw" is perfectly acceptable. It's not bad grammar or syntax, just an abbreviation. Well done for trying though.


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Jan 2009)

It's not actually an abbreviation, it's an acronym.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Jan 2009)

No it's not, it doesn't make a pronouncable word by itself (such as RAM)... unless of course I have the definition wrong...

edit: you are correct about it not being an abbreviation though (oops!), maybe just an initialism.


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Jan 2009)

You do. An acronym is a collection of initial letters, eg TLA (Three Letter Acronym); an abbeviation is what you get if you cut one or more letters out of a word to make 'a shortened version' of the word, eg Nige, for Nigel, or artic, for articulated lorry.


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

Hey guys, for goodness sake! This is getting way off topic. Can we get back to the magnatom bashing please...


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Jan 2009)

Well, technically I don't.. but this is even more OT than most of the stuff in this thread...

Edit: Mags, you're a fool. Feel better now?


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Jan 2009)

Yeah - Mags, you're a fool!

See, we can disagree and still be chums and find something to agree about. 

All you squabblers take note.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Jan 2009)

Nice recovery.


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> Aye, I have absolutely nothing against anyone disagreeing with my point of view. Debate is the main reason I post after all. There is however some people who troll and there are those who make slanderous comments (in another now removed thread).
> 
> I generally try to answer all points put to me, but there comes a point where enough is enough. Still, it's to be expected I suppose.
> 
> If anyone really wanted to start debate they could start a poll/thread on whether using helmet cameras and posting videos was a good or bad idea. I'm certainly not going to start that one, and I'd probably stay out of the discussion. I'm too biased!


----------



## shunter (8 Jan 2009)

magnatom, have you ever thought of using two cams - one pointing forward and one backwards. Just so we can get more of a complete picture


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

shunter said:


> magnatom, have you ever thought of using two cams - one pointing forward and one backwards. Just so we can get more of a complete picture




I have indeed and did for a while during the summer (see these two vid 1 vid 2)

It was a bit of a faff (especially as the camera I used for the rear had a very poor battery). I could improve it with a little cash. Maybe in the sumer I will start using it again.

It would have been good to have rear view footage here!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> I have indeed and did for a while during the summer (see these two vid 1 vid 2)
> 
> It was a bit of a faff (especially as the camera I used for the rear had a very poor battery). *I could improve it with a little cash*. Maybe in the sumer I will start using it again.
> 
> It would have been good to have rear view footage here!


Is that a subtle hint to the forum?...


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Is that a subtle hint to the forum?...



Well if anyone really wants to give me money I could post my bank details. However, I have a feeling more money would leave than would come in!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Jan 2009)

What are you trying to say about the bunch of reprobates group of fine, upstanding citizens that inhabit this forum??


----------



## Crackle (8 Jan 2009)

I've been thinking about this Maggers. I've concluded the only thing you did wrong was to pull up on the passenger side of the car. How can you possibly expect to tw$t the driver from that side. Next time pull up on the driver side and as he winds his window down, execute a quick chop to the wind pipe, nick his keys and ride off.


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> I've been thinking about this Maggers. I've concluded the only thing you did wrong was to pull up on the passenger side of the car. How can you possibly expect to tw$t the driver from that side. Next time pull up on the driver side and as he winds his window down, execute a quick chop to the wind pipe, nick his keys and ride off.




You'd be surprised what I could do from that distance, according to Mr Hippo, my hands can do miraculous things!


----------



## boydj (8 Jan 2009)

In the interests applying a bit of objectivity to this thread, I took a detour on my commute home today to go through the stretch of road where the problem occurred. Two things struck me very quickly :
1. The first pinch point was surprisingly close to the exit from the roundabout, especially measured from the point where the exit from the roundabout opens into a proper two-way road. Less than 40 yards, I'd say.
2. The nearside edge of the road moves away quite quickly to the left as you come out of the little exit slip road, which means that you very consciously have to work at holding a line that will take you into the pinch point without any major weaving about.

My conclusion is that unless you have a car very close behind, there is absolutely no point in moving over to the left, particularly in the potentially icy conditions that prevailed that day. Mags did say early on in the thread that the taxi was not particularly close as he came off the roundabout, so I don't think he did anything different to what most competent commuter cyclists would have done - though I reckon most of us would have been going a bit quicker

And I reckon I'm owed a pint for the dehydration suffered when a 9-mile commute turned into 20 miles Must drink more in the office in the mornings!


----------



## swee'pea99 (8 Jan 2009)

Objectivity? What in the world...? You'll be cluttering things up with facts 'n stuff next. Pish tush. Also harumph.


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Jan 2009)

boydj said:


> In the interests applying a bit of objectivity to this thread, I took a detour on my commute home today to go through the stretch of road where the problem occurred.



Thank you. That's saved me a 400 mile detour!
Virtual pint of your usual Sir?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

Nice one Boyd, thanks for that!

If I recall correctly, Cyclecraft mentions pulling in if the gap between parked cars is 30 yards or more.


----------



## goo_mason (8 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Nice one Boyd, thanks for that!
> 
> If I recall correctly, Cyclecraft mentions pulling in if the gap between parked cars is 30 yards or more.



Which, for metric-taught children of the late 70s, is 27.432 metres. Still doesn't help me much though - can anyone say roughly how many car lengths that is ? I'd be more likely to roughly work out if a gap was more than _x_ cars long !


----------



## wafflycat (8 Jan 2009)

Mid-range car say 4m long... at a rough guess..


----------



## goo_mason (8 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> No way is the distance 27 metres, and the the width of the road at the junction is that wide you could fit a cyclist and a car side by side quite easily.



Before we all start debating the distances / widths etc - can Maggers or boydj give us the location on Google Maps so we can look at the satellite images and work out what they might really be ?


----------



## boydj (8 Jan 2009)

Try this link :
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=55.870601,-4.322847&spn=0.001273,0.003337&t=h&z=18

You'll need to unclick 'Show Labels' in the 'Satellite' tab to get the clearest picture. The exit in question is the one at 8 o'clock on the roundabout and it will take another magnification step.


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Mid-range car say 4m long... at a rough guess..



But this was a close range car...


----------



## HF2300 (8 Jan 2009)

I make that 65 - 70 metres, say 80 - 90 yards, from the RB to the pinch point, but no doubt someone will argue with me...


----------



## boydj (8 Jan 2009)

I make it just over 150 ft from the point of the triangle splitting the exit and entry points to the roundabout to the point where the road narrows again. It's not possible for a car to start to overtake until the opposite lane is available as the exit lane is quite narrow.


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

Boydj I think that was above and beyond the call of duty! However, it is good to have a second pair of eyes at that section of road. I'd be more than happy to get you that beer (a real one) some time. Just PM me and we could meet for some chat over beers if you like. I should add I would make this offer even if you happend to disagree with me!

BM are you seriously suggesting that any figure mentioned in Cyclecraft relates directly to this situation. Remembering that this is not a straight bit of road, it is an exit from a roundabout, the next obstical is a pinch point not a car, it was -3C etc? 

I am sure that the figure (if correct, I don't actually have my copy to hand) would probably relate to a straight long road, under normal conditions etc, and I am almost certain that there will be a proviso in there saying that this distance is a guide, depends on the situation, road layout, speed of cyclist (yeah I know!), relative speed of cars etc.

I tell you something, I am starting to understand what it must be like to be a murder suspect, considering the amount of scrutiny I am under at the moment! Of course I would suggest that I'm just a wittness and not the accused! 

Carry on folks this thread really is quite fascinating! (for a boring cyclists like me!)


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

Well we can't do much with the taxi driver, can we? At least discussing your riding might help you and/or us, because that's what we can access to change.

I don't think you *had* to go left, but I think I would have let the taxi driver past, and I would have slowed too. Had you done that, you would have been chuffed with yourself, and the taxi driver might even have had an approving thought (but still been a blunt). I'd only have stayed in primary there if I was significantly faster and/or there was more reason to than you had.


----------



## Bollo (8 Jan 2009)

Col. 

You've got me thinking, and as someone who's read the nonsense I tend to spout after a heavy bout of thinking, you're probably regretting your actions already.

I think you're confusing two things. They sound a bit the same, so its understandable. The words are 'Civility' and 'Servility'. They're almost homophones, which itself is almost a homophone of homophobe. But I digress!

I am a big fan of civility. So much so that, when preparing for a ride through a particularly bucolic region, I will often swap my Giro Atmos for a Trilby, Homburg or some other head wear more becoming to an English gentleman. Why? Well, for one the effect of lycra and a pre-war chapeau is quite eye-catching and pushes the sartorial boundaries of cycling further than even Rapha have considered (yet!). Also, country folk, despite their love of chasing and killing one type of animal with another of animal while riding a third type of animal and their belief that red diesel should be supplied from a kitchen tap at the taxpayers' expense, tend to be considerate, civil road-users. Perhaps driving primarily on single track roads teaches them the benefits of give-and-take. So, to emphasise my appreciation of the consideration they usually show me on these roads, I will often augment a wave or 'thank-you' with a swift tip or lift of my dapper hat. I'm also perfectly happy to stop, pull-in or otherwise make way for other vehicles when it is safe, convenient and considerate to do so. My bidon is filled with the milk of human kindness. This is civility.

As someone who is a firm believer in _égalité_, I am not a fan of servility. It's an ugly human relationship that places one person above another based on control, convention or the abuse of power. A true story. Many years ago I was forced to meet Princess Anne. Now I'm a bit of a republican, so I was unhappy to be told I was expected to bow when introduced. What had she ever done for me? Why was she better than me? I couldn't get my head around it. Come the day, I was a bag of resentful nerves. I'm also naturally quite clumsy so, when it was time to submit, I didn't so much as bow as aim a headbutt in her general direction. I missed, which I'm quite glad about, because she looked like she could handle herself.

Now col, I put you on my ignore list a long time ago but, thanks to the many quotes that others have seen fit to include in their posts, I'm getting the jist of what you're on about. It's like listening to a football report on the World Service. Some might say that it's an improvement! So, to help you understand the difference between 'Civility' (a good thing) and 'Servility' (a bad thing and what you seem to advocate) I've knocked up a graphic. Perhaps you could laminate it and tape it to your handlebars...


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> ^^ Really what is the point
> 
> Back on topic, I have noticed that 5000 people have viewed this thread and seen as ths thread is about lane discipline and positioning I hope that it may make people think and look at their own riding.



Something we agree on! Although I would guess it will be 5000 views and not 5000 individual people!


----------



## 4F (8 Jan 2009)

Bollo, I will have a pint of whatever you are on please


----------



## boydj (8 Jan 2009)

No problem, Dave. It was a nice afternoon and I finish early on a Thursday anyway. Just wish I'd fuelled up better - thank heaven for Erskine Hospital cafe. Maybe take you up on your offer one of these days.

For the record, I don't think 45 or 50 yards is too long to hold primary when you don't have someone close behind at the start of that stretch.


----------



## Bollo (8 Jan 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Bollo, I will have a pint of whatever you are on please



A pint of vintage port for FFFF, bar-keep!


----------



## gavintc (8 Jan 2009)

I suppose that I am one of the lurkers on here. I am a little disappointed at the level of childish mud slinging and to be honest, I think the tone in here is not as friendly as it once was. I seem to lurk more and post less of late and find myself checking out bikeradar more than of late.


----------



## Joseph (8 Jan 2009)

Just to take the thread in a completely different direction:

The driver clearly decided to pull over, and had something he wanted to say.

From the video, I think mags got the first word in, and it was I think slightly confrontational.

There's a small chance (and I'm happy to accept that it's probably a very small chance) that the driver realised he was in the wrong and was ready to apologise (or at least check mags was ok), but then changed his mind when confronted, resulting in a negative situation.

Whether there's any here that could keep their cool in that situation is another matter. I'm known as level headed/calm and I'm not sure I'd manage it.

Maybe I've just too much of an optimist, and the driver just pulled over to shout at mags for daring to touch his car, not paying road tax, daring to ride in the road, etc... 

I think I'll try and remember to cycle this way tomorrow out of curiosity...


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Jan 2009)

*I tell you something, I am starting to understand what it must be like to be a murder suspect, considering the amount of scrutiny I am under at the moment! Of course I would suggest that I'm just a wit*(*t)ness and not the accused! *

Not by me mate.


----------



## Crackle (8 Jan 2009)

Hey Maggers, can you buy one of those head up speedos that that downhill fella had in his vids, then we can advise you better on holding primary - 50 yards at 5mph is


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

gavintc said:


> I suppose that I am one of the lurkers on here. I am a little disappointed at the level of childish mud slinging and to be honest, I think the tone in here is not as friendly as it once was. I seem to lurk more and post less of late and find myself checking out bikeradar more than of late.



I know how you feel, I felt that way a few weeks ago. However, there are enough good people on here (hopefully I'm included in that) to hang around for. I think forums go through phases, and I am sure things will settle down after a while.

Anyway, you need to hand around as I have set myself a challange to keep up with you on one of the future CC rides!


----------



## magnatom (8 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Hey Maggers, can you buy one of those head up speedos that that downhill fella had in his vids, then we can advise you better on holding primary - 50 yards at 5mph is




Aye, aye, aye! The problem with those speedos is that they give you the urge to go faster and to take risks. That would ruin my reputation...... on second thoughts it would appear that I don't have much of a reputation to ruin!


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2009)

I didn't think I was being unkind to magnatom - just friendly debate and constructive criticism, nothing more was intended.


----------



## hackbike 666 (8 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Aye, aye, aye! The problem with those speedos is that they give you the urge to go faster and to take risks. That would ruin my reputation...... on second thoughts it would appear that I don't have much of a reputation to ruin!



Poor mags.


----------



## col (8 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> Col.
> 
> You've got me thinking, and as someone who's read the nonsense I tend to spout after a heavy bout of thinking, you're probably regretting your actions already.
> 
> ...




Thats a great explanation,but why do you think i advocate servility?


----------



## gratts (8 Jan 2009)

Gosh, so many replies in 2 days! 

Anyway, I've watched the video quite a lot, and I do think Mag is in the right!
The line he's assumed when overtaken seems to me to fit well with the position he should be when the road narrows literally 20 yards on.
And you can see how impatient the taxi was when there is a proper overtake performed just seconds down the road!!

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Dunno whats been said on the 20 odd pages I couldn't be bothered to read!


----------



## alp1950 (8 Jan 2009)

Absolutely typical CC thread: when its good, its very very good; but when its bad its horrid.

32 pages & still counting. Just about everything that needed to be said was in the first 3 pages until Boydi's excellent contribution on page 29.

_Memo to self: must stop reading any thread that goes beyond 3 pages.

Memo to Boydi: get your contribution in early otherwise I won't see it
_


----------



## mr_hippo (9 Jan 2009)

magnatom seeing that you are a pedestrian on a bike/wannaabe cyclist and resident whinger, I have noticed that most of your 'incidents' are in very light traffic - how would you cope in heavy traffic? My latest video -
View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2EhX6adjWZQ
- was taken this morning (Friday 9th) and shows a 3 km stretch of Ram Intra Road, Bangkok. The traffic does get heavier later. Now, if you can't ride in light traffic without whinging then you would have no hope here!
You are not the only road user, you do not own the road and neither do you have 'right of way' on the road in the UK. Buy a copy of Cyclecraft, calm down and enjoy cycling.


----------



## Lurker (9 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> magnatom seeing that you are a pedestrian on a bike/wannaabe cyclist and resident whinger, I have noticed that most of your 'incidents' are in very light traffic - how would you cope in heavy traffic? My latest video -
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2EhX6adjWZQ
> - was taken this morning (Friday 9th) and shows a 3 km stretch of Ram Intra Road, Bangkok. The traffic does get heavier later. Now, if you can't ride in light traffic without whinging then you would have no hope here!
> You are not the only road user, you do not own the road and neither do you have 'right of way' on the road in the UK. Buy a copy of Cyclecraft, calm down and enjoy cycling.





I nominate this for the most Patronising Post of the Day - and the year, so far....


----------



## rnscotch (9 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> magnatom seeing that you are a pedestrian on a bike/wannaabe cyclist and resident whinger, I have noticed that most of your 'incidents' are in very light traffic - how would you cope in heavy traffic? My latest video -
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2EhX6adjWZQ
> - was taken this morning (Friday 9th) and shows a 3 km stretch of Ram Intra Road, Bangkok. The traffic does get heavier later. Now, if you can't ride in light traffic without whinging then you would have no hope here!
> You are not the only road user, you do not own the road and neither do you have 'right of way' on the road in the UK. Buy a copy of Cyclecraft, calm down and enjoy cycling.




You sir are a complete buffoon....


----------



## mr_hippo (9 Jan 2009)

rnscotch said:


> You sir are a complete buffoon....


Care to explain yourself?


----------



## Crackle (9 Jan 2009)

Why Mr.Hippo are you in the 2nd lane with cars passing either side very close. You are effectively in no-mans land, it certainly doesn't look particularly comfortable or safe. You need to explain your reasoning on that one because I wouldn't be there.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> magnatom seeing that you are a pedestrian on a bike/wannaabe cyclist and resident whinger, I have noticed that most of your 'incidents' are in very light traffic - how would you cope in heavy traffic? My latest video -
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2EhX6adjWZQ
> - was taken this morning (Friday 9th) and shows a 3 km stretch of Ram Intra Road, Bangkok. The traffic does get heavier later. Now, if you can't ride in light traffic without whinging then you would have no hope here!
> You are not the only road user, you do not own the road and neither do you have 'right of way' on the road in the UK. Buy a copy of Cyclecraft, calm down and enjoy cycling.




My goodness me, that is an appalling display of bad cycling, positioning, and poor anticipation.

Let's face it, Magnatom didn't actually do anything wrong, although we debated how he might have done things *slightly* better.


----------



## mr_hippo (9 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Why Mr.Hippo are you in the 2nd lane with cars passing either side very close. You are effectively in no-mans land, it certainly doesn't look particularly comfortable or safe. You need to explain your reasoning on that one because I wouldn't be there.



You are correct! I am in the second lane and for good reasons. There are too many buses, mini-buses, cars and taxis stopping and starting in the left-hand lane; priority is given to vehicles entering the main road so they just whizz round the corner into the left-hand lane without stopping or looking. When I first cycled on Ram Intra, I did use the left-hamd lane and felt that it was a lot more dangerous there.
You say that you wouldn't be there, where would you be?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Jan 2009)

Incidentally, does anyone else find it amusing (in a depressing sort of way) when a driver doesn't have the time to wait to get past safely, but always seems to find the time to stop and exchange insults? Always makes me chuckle, after the event.


----------



## Crackle (9 Jan 2009)

Difficult to say as I am unfamiliar with where you are but if I had to cycle in the 2nd lane, I'd be making more of an attempt to claim it and trying to maintain traffic speed, especially if cars are effectively just going to ignore me. Either way, yours and Maggers vids are not comparable as they are entirely different traffic situations, cultures and laws.


----------



## Joseph (9 Jan 2009)

I went down this route this morning. It was certainly interesting.

Conditions were a little warmer than when mags video was taken. I think this was the second time I'd ever ridden through that junction.

The first thing you realise is there's a huge difference in time or perceived time; there's really not that much time to consider lane positioning or anyhing else as you go! I think I had a bus come off the roundabout behind me about the same time mag's taxi did, albeit a bit slower. I did have to move consciously towards the middle of the road (more because of the parked cars beyond the pinch point than the pinch point itself), and did so ahead of the bus, who was either ambling along or deliberately giving me plenty of space.

So, er, conclusions; I think if I rode that junction again I think I'd more consciously try to take the line mags did (or perhaps something slightly more to the right, not sure), unless there was something right up my back coming off the roundabout.

(Not much further down the road both myself & the bus had to slow down because of other cars...)

[and that roundabout wasn't as dangerous feeling as I'd feared it would be!]


----------



## Bollo (9 Jan 2009)

Lurker said:


> I nominate this for the most Patronising Post of the Day - and the year, so far....



Hey, that's mine!

On a rare serious note, one thing I've learned over the past 2 years of camming up is that its rare that footage gives the whole story or completely matches your perceptions while you're riding. A pass you thought was atrocious at the time looks fairly benign on the video. Other times you notice how close you were to augering in without even realising it. The footage shows you wobbling around the lane like a drunk, but it doesn't show the craters and half-pipes you're trying to avoid.

Once the footage has been through peoples' brainboxes (sometimes without reading any explanations, mitigating circumstances etc), the perceptions are scrambled again, so its no wonder arguments ensue.


----------



## hackbike 666 (9 Jan 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Incidentally, does anyone else find it amusing (in a depressing sort of way) when a driver doesn't have the time to wait to get past safely, but always seems to find the time to stop and exchange insults? Always makes me chuckle, after the event.



It's doesn't make me laugh.

On Mr Hippo's Bangkok.I found the driving over there much more tolerant than over here.The driving over here is more agressive.I had real problems settling back in when I got back here with the general wallyness and poor driving.


----------



## MacB (9 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> It's doesn't make me laugh.
> 
> On Mr Hippo's Bangkok.I found the driving over there much more tolerant then over here.The driving over here is more agressive.



Accepted I don't ride in city/town centres and avoid big multi lane junctions/roundabouts, I'm sure driver aggression levels are higher there. Allowing for that I still think the majority of drivers seem ok. Of the rest stupidity, and poor driving skills/knowledge, seems to be a big factor. So far the homicidal maniacs seem to be in a tiny minority. But, hey, it's still early days for me and I reserve the right to take a political u-turn at any time I like


----------



## hackbike 666 (9 Jan 2009)

No I wouldn't want to tar all drivers with the same brush.There are some good eggs out there.


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

I reckon the decent drivers out there _far_ outnumber the peanuts - just as in everyday life, the vast majority of people are decent. And I do think we - or some of us - do have a tendency to adopt a kind of siege 'the best form of defense is attack' mentality, which does nobody any favours. 

We have to coexist. Like it or not, we have to share the road with other people who have other agendas and other perspectives. I think a little empathy and a little less 'I know my rights' chippiness can go quite a long way. Personally I have very little problem with drivers - even WVM - though I am trying to be fiercer. Grrr.

Going back to the original video, one thing that still throws me is, Mags's declared reason for taking up primary so early was fear of black ice. I would have thought the best place to avoid black ice would be not in primary - untouched for the most part - but where car tyres are rubbing the road surface every few seconds. Which would be, oh, perhaps 2-3ft out from the kerb? By strange coincidence, an ideal distance to allow others to pass safely...

That's where I would have been.


----------



## Crackle (9 Jan 2009)

Yeah but swee'pea, that's the trouble with vids, you can't tell the conditions easily, so you have to assume that Maggers chose the right line but in general I would agree with that position, it's most likely to be swept by cars but depending on camber, car line, sun position, it might not, hence my first comment.


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> you have to assume that Maggers chose the right line


Sorry, but why? Out of tribal loyalty? Ok, I wasn't there, but I stand by my first assessment - that from everything I see and my experience of how roads & black ice work, 2-3ft out from the kerb was the safest, as well as the most considerate, place to be.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jan 2009)

A two month hiatus and look what I come back to… plus ça change! 

If Magnatom had ridden that stretch in a secondary position and had suffered a similarly close pass the same people who are “constructively criticising” him would be squealing at him to ride in primary, or in the gutter, or even more to right, etc etc etc. Different lateral positions on the road present different problems/advantages as traffic flow is dynamic: constantly balancing the benefits and disbenefits as you cycle is difficult as it is based on competing and incomplete sensory information. What works one day, will not work on another - particularly as a small proportion of drivers will not accord you respect regardless of where you situate yourself on the road.


----------



## Crackle (9 Jan 2009)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Sorry, but why? Out of tribal loyalty? [/quote]

 Tribal Loyalty!

No, because he was there, we weren't and taking into account what others who've ridden the jct said.


----------



## Bollo (9 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> A two month hiatus and look what I come back to… plus ça change!
> 
> ......



Yeah! O's back. I was worried you'd gone for good. That's a fine-looking cedilla you've got there.

And just to prove its not tribal, I'm going to agree with your last post!


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> If Magnatom had ridden that stretch in a secondary position and had suffered a similarly close pass the same people who are “constructively criticising” him would be squealing at him to ride in primary, or in the gutter, or even more to right, etc etc etc.


I wouldn't. If he'd 'ridden that stretch in a secondary position and had suffered a similarly close pass' I'd have been 100% on his side. The reason I'm less gung-ho on his behalf is because it seems to me his riding was a contributory factor in what happened, and that the kind of attitude it at least appears to exemplify makes life more difficult for us, as well as for other road users. 

By the way, welcome back, easy on 'squealing' and the like, eh? There's no call for it...it just sours what can and should be a perfectly reasonable discussion.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> Yeah! O's back. I was worried you'd gone for good. That's a fine-looking cedilla you've got there.
> 
> And just to prove its not tribal, I'm going to agree with your last post!



It was the pitiful lack of diacritics on this fourm that lured me back...something had to be done.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> If he'd 'ridden that stretch in a secondary position and had suffered a similarly close pass' I'd have been 100% on his side. The reason I'm less gung-ho on his behalf is because it seems to me his riding was a contributory factor in what happened, and that the kind of attitude it at least appears to exemplify makes life more difficult for us, as well as for other road users.
> 
> By the way, welcome back, easy on 'squealing' and the like, eh? There's no call for it...it just sours what can and should be a perfectly reasonable discussion.
> [/FONT]



I think you've missed the thrust of my post. Riding in a secondary position could also have contributed to a close pass. The fact that this happens to be your favoured coping strategy in this instance is neither here nor there. 

"Squealing" sums up some of some of the responses on here. What's more, the thread is littered with examples that are not of the "perfectly reasonable" type. 

Good to be back, thanks.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2009)

Why not be honest and blunt, and tell us who's "squealing"?


----------



## beanzontoast (9 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> If he'd 'ridden that stretch in a secondary position and had suffered a similarly close pass' I'd have been 100% on his side. The reason I'm less gung-ho on his behalf is because* it seems to me his riding was a contributory factor in what happened*, and *that the kind of attitude it at least appears to exemplify makes life more difficult for us*, as well as for other road users.
> 
> By the way, welcome back, easy on 'squealing' and the like, eh? There's no call for it...it just sours what can and should be a perfectly reasonable discussion.
> [/FONT]



I'm not sure I'd have handled that layout any differently / 'better' than Mag did. Haven't we all had at least one near miss when we were sure we'd done the right thing? You can line up 100 cyclists, get 99 of them to agree on the 'correct' approach to a given road layout and still get knocked off following their advice, because road users of all kinds are unpredicatable and make mistakes.

If you can keep totally calm, feel, say and do nothing when you've just been near-missed, I admire you for that.


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> I think you've missed the thrust of my post. Riding in a secondary position could also have contributed to a close pass.
> 
> *How so?*
> 
> ...



*You're welcome. *


----------



## Origamist (9 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Why not be honest and blunt, and tell us who's "squealing"?



How about Mr Hippo here: 

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=534893&postcount=152

I could go one, but would there be any point?


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

beanzontoast said:


> I'm not sure I'd have handled that layout any differently / 'better' than Mag did.
> 
> *Well, which of us could 'be sure'? But that's not the question. The question is, 'could it have been handled better?' And to that question, the answer seems to me to be yes.*
> 
> ...


I never said I could. I can't. But, again, not the point.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jan 2009)

Drivers pass close when you're in secondary too and taking primary before pinch points can help, but that to has associated problems as Mag's video testifies.

"Coping strategy", pejorative!? You've got me flummoxed there. 

No, "squealing" doesn't make it right - that's why I was criticising those who go in for it!

Hope all that is clear...


----------



## beanzontoast (9 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> Can't see how an understanding that road users make mistakes is irrelevant. It's fundamental to what happened here. Cycling with the certain knowledge that other road users won't always do what you assume they will in terms of position and speed is what matters. It's not a straightforward question of 'right' and 'wrong'.


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

beanzontoast said:


> Can't see how an understanding that road users make mistakes is irrelevant.


It's irrelevant to the point at issue: could Mags have taken a better position on the road. I say yes.


----------



## mr_hippo (9 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> How about Mr Hippo here:
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=534893&postcount=152
> 
> I could go one, but would there be any point?



squeal 
v. squealed, squeal·ing, squeals 
v. intr. 
To give forth a loud shrill cry or sound. 
Slang To turn informer; betray an accomplice or secret. 
v. tr. 
To utter or produce with a squeal. 
n. A loud, shrill cry or sound: a squeal of surprise; the squeal of tires. 

I've not uttered a sound - has anyone heard me squeal? Neither have I informed on anyone!
What was the point of your post? 
This is a forum where people give their opinions or haven't you realised that simple fact?


----------



## beanzontoast (9 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> swee said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but you're saying that because you think you can predict what the driver would have done if Mag had been in the alternate position you advocate. My point is, you cannot predict the driver's reaction or course of action with any degree of certainty at all. No one can.


----------



## Origamist (9 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> squeal
> v. squealed, squeal·ing, squeals
> v. intr.
> To give forth a loud shrill cry or sound.
> ...



Your earlier post is shrill (more of a pig squeal than a hippo wail) but that is only my opinion. 

This is a forum where people give their opinions or haven't you realised that simple fact?


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.


----------



## beanzontoast (9 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> You're right, you said "could Mags have taken a better position on the road. I say yes." which I have no issue with as an opinion.
> 
> Would you not agree that, because the reactions of the driver to a different road position are unknown, Mag doing it differently would not necessarily have produced a better outcome?


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

'not necessarily' - of course. The driver _could_ have been a psycopathic cycle-hater, determined to close-shave riders wherever they happened to be. 

But would _you_ not agree that it's far more likely that if Mags had been, say, 2-3ft from the kerb, making it easy for the driver to pass him with a clear and safe margin, that's probably what would have happened?

We can't _know_ the cabbie wasn't a psycopath, but it would seem odd to presume that he was - or even that he might have been. Few cabbies are. They're mostly just regular blokes trying to make a living, same as you and me.


----------



## boydj (9 Jan 2009)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Going back to the original video, one thing that still throws me is, Mags's declared reason for taking up primary so early was fear of black ice. I would have thought the best place to avoid black ice would be not in primary - untouched for the most part - but where car tyres are rubbing the road surface every few seconds. Which would be, oh, perhaps 2-3ft out from the kerb? By strange coincidence, an ideal distance to allow others to pass safely...

That's where I would have been.[/quote]

This is just wrong! I made the point in an earlier post that the kerb seems to dive away sharply to the left as you exit the roundabout. The line that cars take is a fairly straight line from the rab to the pinch point, so the line of the nearside tire is well away from the kerb. You can also see from the map that there are cross-hatchings next to the kerb as you approach the pinch point, so the area 2-3 feet from the kerb in this stretch of road is NOT cleared by car tires.


----------



## boydj (9 Jan 2009)

alp1950 said:


> _Memo to Boydi: get your contribution in early otherwise I won't see it_



 - and thank-you. I did have to wait until I could ride the route before I could make that contribution.


----------



## beanzontoast (9 Jan 2009)

swee said:


> know[/I] the cabbie wasn't a psycopath, but it would seem odd to presume that he was - or even that he might have been. Few cabbies are. They're mostly just regular blokes trying to make a living, same as you and me.



Maybe. Probability is a funny thing - if we ran our lives by it, no-one would ever buy a lottery ticket!

While I agree about cabbies in general, IME I've seen many who drive in a way that the average driver does not.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one!


----------



## boydj (9 Jan 2009)

mr_hippo said:


> Now, if you can't ride in light traffic without whinging then you would have no hope here!



I find the heavier the traffic, the easier it is and the fewer incidents there are because I am either occupying the lane and keeping up, or filtering past slow or stationary traffic. I'm sure Mags and others would agree with this, whether they are cycling in Glasgow, London, or Bangkok.


----------



## swee'pea99 (9 Jan 2009)

boydj said:


> This is just wrong! I made the point in an earlier post that the kerb seems to dive away sharply to the left as you exit the roundabout. The line that cars take is a fairly straight line from the rab to the pinch point, so the line of the nearside tire is well away from the kerb. You can also see from the map that there are cross-hatchings next to the kerb as you approach the pinch point, so the area 2-3 feet from the kerb in this stretch of road is NOT cleared by car tires.


Fair enough. In that case, I concede the point. 

I have to say that personally I would still have felt nervous at best trying to hold primary in that position, at that speed, for that long, and would still, I think, have gone for secondary - carefully, and with a beady eye out for the old BI. But as far as the nearside tyres goes, if you say that's where they go, I'll take your word for it.


----------



## col (9 Jan 2009)

> I don't.
> 
> Whatever situation he caused, he did not cause the actions of the driver. The driver did.




Read your post,you say whatever situation he caused,he did not cause the drivers actions,mmmmmm so the situation he caused has nothing to do with the situation?



> No I'm not. Mag didn't make the driver do anything. He didn't have to pass him, or pass him close. He chose to.
> 
> Where's the contradiction?


----------



## magnatom (9 Jan 2009)

Hi,

I've been busy today, thus the lack of posts! 
Mr Hippo!  Actually I disagree with the suggestion that your post was condescending. To be condescending you need to be talking from a position of knowledge.... Your right about Glasgow being quiet. I've never came across more than one or two cars on each commute, even when I cross Anniesland Cross which is supposed to be the second busiest city intersection in Europe! 
Joseph many thanks for the third pair of eyes. That's another pint I owe. I will really have to pop over sometime! I agree that the roundabout isn't that bad. Just occasionally you get muppets like this.

So two independent cyclists have suggested that my line was reasonable. Surely that has to count for something. Will those that still suggest that my line was wrong at least concede that video evidence whilst useful does not give the full picture, and that actually being there might count for something?


----------



## col (9 Jan 2009)

> Dearie me.
> 
> The situation that Mag caused was him being where he was on the road.
> 
> ...



No,your basic enough i think


----------



## Joseph (10 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> The most important here is do YOU realise that perhaps your line may have been a bit wrong?



Although the earlier pages of this thread are now somewhat of a distant memory, my recollection is that magnatom already said he changed and rode with a stronger primary the next day.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Not really, if mag would have been in secondary which he could have been then the driver of the cab *would* have passed given him loads of room.



Could have, or might not have.


----------



## magnatom (10 Jan 2009)

Joseph said:


> Although the earlier pages of this thread are now somewhat of a distant memory, my recollection is that magnatom already said he changed and rode with a stronger primary the next day.




Exactly. In fact on my very first post in this thread I say that! So what have the last several hundred posts been about?!!

OK. Final question. Three independent cyclists who have been there agree that the line I took was reasonable. So can we agree that it was reasonable, (yes better primary would have been better), and so I was justified in taking this line, remembering the conditions, the comments of independent cyclists, the video and my comments? 

Has anyone else cycling ever been under so much scrutiny!?


----------



## Origamist (10 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Has anyone else cycling ever been under so much scrutiny!?



Has anyone else uploaded as much film of their cycling for public scrutiny!


----------



## hackbike 666 (10 Jan 2009)

No.


----------



## snapper_37 (10 Jan 2009)

I can't believe the way this has thread has gone. FFS Mag had a car a little too close and acted as he felt at the time.

All this bollocks about how he *should* have rode, from people who weren't there in the situation at the time. 

Primary, secondary blah blah blah. He is a cyclist on the road (a road user) and no one can predict what is going to happen with other road users.

It's like picking bones from a sparrow - tedious.


----------



## boydj (10 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Not really, if mag would have been in secondary which he could have been then the driver of the cab would have passed given him loads of room.
> 
> As I have said before there is a fine line between guarding your own road space and being an undue hazard on the road.



If Mag had gone into secondary - on the unswept, possibly icy, part of the road - then he would still have had some sort of contention with the taxi as he tried to get back out to pass the pinch-point, because he would have been well into the hatched area of the road before the taxi was past.

(Sorry for adding to the tedium, Snapper)


----------



## jezhiggins (10 Jan 2009)

snapper_37 said:


> I can't believe the way this has thread has gone. FFS Mag had a car a little too close and acted as he felt at the time.
> 
> All this bollocks about how he *should* have rode, from people who weren't there in the situation at the time.
> 
> Primary, secondary blah blah blah. He is a cyclist on the road (a road user) and no one can predict what is going to happen with other road users.



I felt that same. This constant if-onlying served very little purpose. There is a class of drivers who deliberately and knowingly drive badly and/or dangerously with the expectation that other traffic will accomodate them. 
We saw that on Mag's video, where the taxi driver expected the oncoming traffic to move across and Mag to move to the kerb. The cars did (because who wants a head-on collision?) while beeping the horn. Taxi driver can let that go - no skin of his nose. Mag also moves (because who want to be crushed?), but in the process touches the car. The psychology involved when someone hits a car is really odd, because it seems to make some people act it really over the top ways. I don't know if it's seen as aggression, or repremand, or some deeper violation, but it kicks them off. Mag's driver, moments ago desperate to get through, stopped and gave him a mouthful.

The guy I encountered at 9 this morning here http://is.gd/fcAK also forced his way through a space that didn't exist. I imagine he must caused traffic in the outside lane to move. He certainly squeezed me toward the kerb, while yelling something through the passenger window. I gestured he should move away, and caught his wing mirror in the process. It really was only a handsbreadth away. He then pulled across in front of me - I bailed to the kerb and got off, because there was no way I wanted him behind me. He jumped out, asked if I "wanted to start something", that I should "ride in the GUTTER", said something about his "four grand car", and then stamped on my rear wheel. I shoved him away, and we tussled for a few seconds. He might have hit me, I think I hit him. After we seperated, he got back in the car and reversed it toward me. I had to run, grabbing and dragging my bike behind the lamp post.

Perhaps I could have avoided the situation with a different line, although that would have involved taking an entirely different road. Perhaps I could have avoided this by not hitting his wing mirror. However I didn't deliberately hit it - he really was so close that waving my hand a few inches to the right was enough - and having a car so close at 20mph isn't entirely conducive to rational thought. Perhaps I could have talked my way with a witty riposte, or a gentle explanation of the highway code.

On the other hand, perhaps he was just an impatient nutter who expects everyone to clear out of his way because he so much more important than they are, and those that don't need to be taught a lesson? You can't anticipate idiots like that, or you'd become so frightened you'd never leave the house.

Mag wasn't the responsible for what happened to him. I wasn't for what happened to me. Other than we were riding bikes on the road, of course.


----------



## hackbike 666 (10 Jan 2009)

Jez+Snapper,I agree.

Jez what happened to you with that prat using his car against you has happened to me and perhaps other cyclists on this forum.

That's what we are up against.

Oh yeah and the non existent space to squeeze through also.


----------



## johnnyh (10 Jan 2009)

surely the bottom line is that a duty of care is owed by drivers to other road users, and whatever they think the rights and wrongs of the situation, they should not endanger another road user.

the taxi gimp didnt show this duty of care, and it certainly sounds like the tosser jez had to deal with needs his license revoked!


----------



## magnatom (10 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> Has anyone else uploaded as much film of their cycling for public scrutiny!



Yes they have! http://uk.youtube.com/user/mailpauljonescouk for instance!


----------



## hackbike 666 (10 Jan 2009)

johnnyh said:


> surely the bottom line is that a duty of care is owed by drivers to other road users, and whatever they think the rights and wrongs of the situation, they should not endanger another road user.
> 
> the taxi gimp didnt show this duty of care, and it certainly sounds like the tosser jez had to deal with needs his license revoked!



Yeah but that's in a perfect world.


----------



## magnatom (10 Jan 2009)

Jez, that sounds horrible! My sympathies (from my experience you shouldn't expect to get too many!)

I agree that the discussion got to te anal stage, however, I think overall it raised the issue of road position on a public forum in a way that it got us all thinking about it. That in itself is a result. I don't take any of it personally, just look at the abuse I get on youtube. If I can take that, I can take what I get on here!

I'm getting more abusive posts again!


----------



## jezhiggins (10 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Jez, that sounds horrible!



It wasn't a great deal of fun, no. Very frightening at the time. Afterwards, I was left with an unrideable bike, and a three mile walk before I could get a taxi the rest of the way home.

I was able to borrow a phone and call the police, a couple of minutes after it all happened. Top tip - if you're going to drive like a pillock don't have an easily memorable registration number (which I've subsequently discovered is up for sale on eBay). I'm waiting for the police to come a take a statement - sometime next week, I guess.



magnatom said:


> My sympathies



Thanks, I appreciate it.


----------



## hackbike 666 (10 Jan 2009)

Always have your camera phone at the ready.I remember taking a picture of that single deckers number plate when he passed me too close.I know it wound him up.


----------



## HLaB (10 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Always have your camera phone at the ready.I remember taking a picture of that single deckers number plate when he passed me too close.I know it wound him up.



A mate of mine just pulls out his phone and pretends to take a picture just to wind them up, I don't know if he's got a camera phone yet


----------



## tdr1nka (10 Jan 2009)

HLaB said:


> A mate of mine just pulls out his phone and pretends to take a picture just to wind them up, I don't know if he's got a camera phone yet



LOL, I do that too!!


----------



## tdr1nka (10 Jan 2009)

My sympathies Jez, for your incident and the pointless interpretation of events ^.


----------



## jezhiggins (10 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> When the Police come to make a statement he will have to make his mind up then...I think he hit me ...I might have hit him.



It wasn't a queensbury's rules boxing match, it was a scuffle on the road. Unfortunately I'm not blessed with an eidetic memory and 20-20 hindsite, so I'll just have to go on the available evidence. I'm sore on one side just above my waist - perhaps I was hit, perhaps it's just lugging the bike on my shoulder for an hour, perhaps both. Two knuckles on my right hand are sore - perhaps from the mirror, perhaps I clipped him on the jaw, perhaps both. 



User3143 said:


> At the end of the day, someone passed him to close he clipped his wing mirror and they had a bit of a scrap.



Silly me. How could I have been so wrong! The scales have fallen. He was just having a laugh.

**** off.


----------



## Crackle (10 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> From this it is obvious what happened. Calm down mate, no need to get abusive.




Hardly surprising Lee. A lot of your posts show a remarkable lack of empathy. Either that or you're just one of these people that has to swim against the tide. I suspect the latter.


----------



## Twenty Inch (10 Jan 2009)

I don't often get abusive on this forum, but I have to say that Lee is one of the most objectionable, pointless, scum-sucking trolls I've ever come across.

He's posted 1571 posts since Sept 2008. Nearly 400 a month, about 13 a day, and most of them simply to wind other people up. What a cock.

Ignore list from now on.


----------



## hackbike 666 (10 Jan 2009)

HLaB said:


> A mate of mine just pulls out his phone and pretends to take a picture just to wind them up, I don't know if he's got a camera phone yet



I did it to a tit in a 108 and he was mighty keen for the lights to go to green


----------



## tdr1nka (10 Jan 2009)

Commuting gets it's own Simon CC.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jan 2009)

Come on people, time to stop throwing your toys out of the cot.


----------



## magnatom (10 Jan 2009)

Come out with it then Lee. Stop your bull. What do you really think? Your one for the slightly ambiguous comments (that is what winds folk up by the way). What do you really think of Jez's incident. Are you suggesting that Jez was at fault here? Are you suggesting that that he isn't telling the truth? Go on Lee, lay your cards on the table, let us know what you really think.


----------



## hackbike 666 (10 Jan 2009)

Yes lee is a wind up but I have been on worse boards than this.

Actually with Jez's incident I can relate and sometimes I wish I had the bottle to stand up to these pr1cks sometimes.



Crackle said:


> Hardly surprising Lee. A lot of your posts show a remarkable lack of empathy. Either that or you're just one of these people that has to swim against the tide. I suspect the latter.



In layman's terms terms,wind-up.


----------



## magnatom (10 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Yes lee is a wind up but I have been on worse boards than this.
> 
> Actually with Jez's incident I can relate and sometimes I wish I had the bottle to stand up to these pr1cks sometimes.
> 
> ...



Aye, but in this instance he is obviously winding someone up who has been through a nasty incident. That's just not on in my book.


----------



## col (10 Jan 2009)

> Whether mag's line was right or wrong can only come down to opinion. He's entitled to use whichever part of his side of the road that he wants, and the discussion can only be about the justification for doing so.
> 
> What is wrong without doubt, and only col seems to be disagreeing, is the decision of the driver in cutting him up.




I think your baiting paul,iv never dissagreed about the overtake being anything other than bad,where did you get this idea?But then i should be used to your baiting,as you hate people dissagreeing with you too dont you.


----------



## Origamist (10 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Yes they have! http://uk.youtube.com/user/mailpauljonescouk for instance!



You're still the number 1 cameræd crusader to me – battling those dastardly cartoon villains: Mr Hippo aka “The Penguin”, "The Mad Hatter" Col, and Lee "The Joker"?


----------



## magnatom (10 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> You're still the number 1 cameræd crusader to me – battling those dastardly cartoon villains: Mr Hippo aka “The Penguin”, "The Mad Hatter" Col, and Lee "The Joker"?


----------



## Moderators (10 Jan 2009)

The actual quote from Jez is;
'I gestured he should move away, and caught his wing mirror in the process.'


----------



## wafflycat (10 Jan 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> Commuting gets it's own Simon CC.



You know, tdr1nka, you are absolutely correct!


----------



## col (10 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


>



Are you going to answer my question mag?You pester others to answer yours often enough.


----------



## tdr1nka (10 Jan 2009)

I have my moments


----------



## mr_hippo (11 Jan 2009)

Over 400 posts about what? A non-event! A car travelling at low speed overtakes a pedestrian on a bike/wannabe cyclist a bit closer than this pedestrian on a bike/wannabe cyclist wants. 
Magnatom - from your first post "...his attitude are not acceptable" - neither was yours! 
Read the advice in the Highway Code "Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." Please note, it says 'avoid an incident' and not 'provoke an incident'.
One final point, please learn to tell the difference between 'your' (possessive pronoun) and 'you're' (contraction of 'you are').


----------



## col (11 Jan 2009)

It seems to me that all the excuses used like its to make my journey safer,or there might have been some ice or debris so it would be more dangerous to move over are just that,excuses,more like i dont want to be held up on my journey,and why should i be when its easier for a car to pick up speed again.And the reason of i may as well not be on my bike if im held up that often?Its rare i have to stop in any of these circumstances and i still enjoy my cycling,It comes back to the my journey is more important than others routine,which has been used against cars before.If your in that much of a hurry then use the car,cycling is about enjoying the benefits,and giving way to faster vehicles and maybe even slowing or stopping just part of being a courtious cyclist.I dont know call me old fashioned,but i dont feel good holding people up when all it takes is a few seconds extra to let them passed,and it makes the roads a safer place and less confrontational,correct me ,and i know you probably will mag,but whats the big deal about losing some time instead of have these incidents because you would rather hold a line that blocks vehicles from passing,now i know you will say it stops close overtakes,but they dont have to be close if you dont mind losing a few seconds on your trip.Or is that the whole point,you feel you shouldnt have ?


----------



## magnatom (11 Jan 2009)

I see a post by the moderators. I'd love to know if there is a thread in the moderators forum about this thread. If there is I bet it is a good few pages long!

Back to this thread. I can hear a lot of white noise but I just can't make any sense of it.....


----------



## magnatom (11 Jan 2009)

Oh, wait a minute I've applies some filters to the noise and some signal is coming through....a spaceship is coming to earth from the planet Llort. Commander Tollr says he comes in peace, but after that all I can make out is garbbled nonsense.....


----------



## Origamist (11 Jan 2009)

col said:


> It seems to me that all the excuses used like its to make my journey safer,or there might have been some ice or debris so it would be more dangerous to move over are just that,excuses,more like i dont want to be held up on my journey,and why should i be when its easier for a car to pick up speed again.And the reason of i may as well not be on my bike if im held up that often?Its rare i have to stop in any of these circumstances and i still enjoy my cycling,It comes back to the my journey is more important than others routine,which has been used against cars before.If your in that much of a hurry then use the car,cycling is about enjoying the benefits,and giving way to faster vehicles and maybe even slowing or stopping just part of being a courtious cyclist.I dont know call me old fashioned,but i dont feel good holding people up when all it takes is a few seconds extra to let them passed,and it makes the roads a safer place and less confrontational,correct me ,and i know you probably will mag,but whats the big deal about losing some time instead of have these incidents because you would rather hold a line that blocks vehicles from passing,now i know you will say it stops close overtakes,but they dont have to be close if you dont mind losing a few seconds on your trip.Or is that the whole point,you feel you shouldnt have ?



Some cyclists adopt a primary position at pinch points in order to try and limit conflict with overtaking and oncoming traffic - not to delay motorists or make their commute faster, Col! You have a different strategy for dealing with these situations and it also can lead to problems (a proportion of drivers don’t like cyclists in secondary) - there is no one "right" answer. Magnatom has stated that he has taken this line for 2 years with no similar issues - that seems like pretty good going to me. 

As for close overtakes, a study found that motorists pass cyclists closer than when they overtake motorised traffic. Why is this? Strange as it may sound motorists tend to pass cyclists only a few inches closer on average when they were further out in the road (not by a matter of feet). Cyclists adopting a primary road position will stop the vast majority of impatient overtakers at pinch points, but every so often you will suffer an "admonitory overtake"...

Finally, cars delay me on my commute every day - average speeds are sub 15mph. I don't get angry or impatient with them...


----------



## magnatom (11 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> If that's your attitude then what is the point?




Your right. There is no point. In future I will try my best not to feed the trolls.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2009)

An equally good suggestion might be for you Lee to try and post in a slightly more socially skilled and friendly way. I know I'm not particularly good at this either, but I hope Dave saw my posts in the light I intended to, i.e. as a mate and not with the intention of upsetting him.


----------



## magnatom (11 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> An equally good suggestion might be for you Lee to try and post in a slightly more socially skilled and friendly way. I know I'm not particularly good at this either, but I hope Dave saw my posts in the light I intended to, i.e. as a mate and not with the intention of upsetting him.




Absolutely Mike. You and I have had some disagreements in our time, but it has always been as online cycling mates and if I was ever down your neck of the woods I would happily meet up with a beer.

Lee however is confrontational, and often posts (intentionally?) in a manner that is ambiguous and suggestive. That is not in my opinion helpful and just raised hackles. Just look at how he reacted to jez and the reaction that that provoked. Lee suggests that I don't accept I should change my cycling. In my first post on this thread I suggested that I could have done it differently. 
So Lee, will you admit that you should change your posting technique? In fact I am this at col as well. You've both suggested that my cycling technique was antagonistic, would you agree that your positing styles have an antagonistic effect?


----------



## hackbike 666 (11 Jan 2009)

Are people trolls though just because they cycle differently?


----------



## arranandy (11 Jan 2009)

That was a close one Magna. Don't take this the wrong way but you seem to have quite a lot of 'incidents'. I've cycle commuted about 2/3 days a week in Glasgow for about 18 months and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of 'incidents' I've had. Maybe my routes and commuting times are a bit quieter than yours. Anyway, stay safe and don't let the b@stards grind you down.


----------



## wafflycat (11 Jan 2009)

Perhaps I can draw attention to the opening lines here..


----------



## wafflycat (11 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> No, but God forbid if you ever have a different opinion to other members on here.



Here's an  Lee. It's not the difference of opinion - it's how you manage to express it.


----------



## hackbike 666 (11 Jan 2009)

It's says if you can't say something nice then don't say nothing at all.

*No, but God forbid if you ever have a different opinion to other members on here.*

I have and a lot of the time I keep them to myself and let other people tell me *how* I should cycle.


----------



## Riding in Circles (11 Jan 2009)

I don't think there is any point to continuing this argument over differing opinions, I've criticised a few people over their riding styles, I'm not going to name names but some take it on board with good enough response while others consider they can do no wrong, it's the net though and a lot different from being face to face and it is easier to be combative on here, I think this has run it's course.


----------



## just jim (11 Jan 2009)

Never seen "Bambi" Lee? 

Take some time out and watch it. It's a classic.


----------



## just jim (11 Jan 2009)

Sometimes a good book or a film can take your mind off things. Don't just go by the reviews.


----------



## hackbike 666 (11 Jan 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> I don't think there is any point to continuing this argument over differing opinions, I've criticised a few people over their riding styles, I'm not going to name names but some take it on board with good enough response while others consider they can do no wrong, it's the net though and a lot different from being face to face and it is easier to be combative on here, I think this has run it's course.



What have you criticised with other peoples riding?

I don't consider that I can do no wrong.

My number one objective is to get from A-B without an incident and if I do have an incident I look to see why it happened and how can I change it or stop it from happening again.The only thing is if I posted it on here I'd get all the criticisms from the perfects on here.

2008 was a good year for cycle commuting,the worst thing that happened was with the chain breakeage resulting in two spills..


----------



## Riding in Circles (11 Jan 2009)

I take criticism on my riding style in good stead, it's all fair and interesting to hear how others deal with given situations. Your offs were not down to the chain breakage but rather a deficiency in the design of the cycle you ride.

Why so defensive btw?


----------



## hackbike 666 (11 Jan 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> I take criticism on my riding style in good stead, it's all fair and interesting to hear how others deal with given situations. Your offs were not down to the chain breakage but rather a deficiency in the design of the cycle you ride.
> 
> Why so defensive btw?




*Why so defensive btw?*

Because im a tit?


----------



## Riding in Circles (11 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> *Why so defensive btw?*
> 
> Because im a tit?



I like your style, respect.


----------



## hackbike 666 (11 Jan 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> I like your style, respect.



Respect.:?:


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> I like your style, respect.



That made me laugh!


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2009)

Back to Lee, let's not get too hard on him. I met him, and he's a nice chap in person and rides well. I now know how to take his posts and I have a much better insight into what he means, so perhaps we could have a bit of tolerance?

OTOH Lee, the whole social skills thing of posting - you can have some definite improvement there. You might not want to change it, but your posts are currently a bit like a wobbly cyclist riding along with a bright red light on the front of his bike, and being on the wrong side of the road. I hope you'll take that in the spirit in which I intend that, as a mate. (Oh, and before anyone says anything, I know I'm distinctly weak in social skills too).


----------



## hackbike 666 (11 Jan 2009)

> That made me laugh!



Yes it went right over my head.



If you think you are weak in social skills BM then so am I.


----------



## col (12 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> Some cyclists adopt a primary position at pinch points in order to try and limit conflict with overtaking and oncoming traffic - not to delay motorists or make their commute faster, Col! You have a different strategy for dealing with these situations and it also can lead to problems (a proportion of drivers don’t like cyclists in secondary) - there is no one "right" answer. Magnatom has stated that he has taken this line for 2 years with no similar issues - that seems like pretty good going to me.
> 
> As for close overtakes, a study found that motorists pass cyclists closer than when they overtake motorised traffic. Why is this? Strange as it may sound motorists tend to pass cyclists only a few inches closer on average when they were further out in the road (not by a matter of feet). Cyclists adopting a primary road position will stop the vast majority of impatient overtakers at pinch points, but every so often you will suffer an "admonitory overtake"...
> 
> Finally, cars delay me on my commute every day - average speeds are sub 15mph. I don't get angry or impatient with them...




The only problems my style of riding has caused me if you can call them problems,which i dont,i call it the safest choice,is that i might have to stop and wait for a gap to carry on when i have let vehicles pass before a pinch point,im all for the right position at the right time,but too early with excuses isnt in my opinion.In two years i think he has had more incidents with his i have every right to be here so you must comply with my style of riding,than i have had in 35 years of cycling,so i would rather stay with my way than his way.
His way is a perfect world scenario,but im afraid this isnt a perfect world and drivers dont understand the needs of cyclists in the same way as we do,so expecting it is unrealistic and as he has shown in the past,dangerous with the trouble he has had.he posts his vids for all to see, and have said what we think,instead of concedeing we have a different idea of safe cycling he calls us trolls and comes out with silly statements instead of answering questions that he must find too difficult,im not a troll,i say it how i see it,but then reply to his genuine trollish behaviour,which i admit gives him excuses to avoid the answers,but it just shows his real character,instead of the so called fine upstanding fighting for the cyclists rights one.We are adults and should be able to act like it,if he cant handle others thoughts that dont agree with him then dont post a vid.
In my ,and others opinion it seems,he took primary too early and could have let this taxi go before the pinch point,thats if he was aware of it being there,if he was aware of it then it was a really ignorant line ,if he wasnt then he should learn to be more aware of whats around him on busy roads,and not expect to block exits of busy roundabouts with out somesort of reaction.He should also learn that losing a few seconds on a roundabout by slowing and checking for a gap before the pinch point is safer and better all round than holding traffic up exiting a roundabout.This is my opinion and also the way i cycle,i have had hardly any problems worth mentioning using this way all my cycling life,he cant say the same as his very style aggravates others,but then uses safety as his excuse.Like i have said,i will use position when its needed,but it seems he uses it to make points.My post is not meant to upset but put an argument forward,if this makes me a troll then id like to know what insinuation and name calling is ,as that seems to be his way of replying when he doesnt get the answer he wants.
Be a man and answer without insinuation or name calling,and prove my impression of you wrong.:?:


----------



## Rhythm Thief (12 Jan 2009)

Col, I don't mean to be rude and I'm sure you're making lots of very good points, but is there any chance you could write your longer posts using sentences and paragraphs? And maybe put spaces between punctuation marks and the start of the following word. Then I might get to the end of one of your posts having read it all without my eyes hurting.:?:


----------



## rnscotch (12 Jan 2009)

You have got to be kidding me, this thread is like a roll of andrex it goes on & on & on.


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Be a man and answer without insinuation or name calling,and prove my impression of you wrong.:?:




We are all very adept when it comes to justifying how we ride and most of us do little more than feed our own confirmation bias about what is “best”. However, to suggest safety is nothing more than an “excuse” is unreasonable. Everyone perceives risk in a different way and will therefore deal with it in a multiplicity of ways. Just because you disagree with a strategy to deal with a particular set of circumstances, does not make it an “excuse”. Plenty of people will think you’re a crazy risk-taker for simply riding your bike on the roads… 

Slowing down and waiting at the side of the road for a gap has four main disadvantages: your bike does not handle as well at lower speeds, you are less visible to traffic, if you grind to a halt your relative immobililty makes you more vulnerable, and moreover, you still have to rejoin the traffic before the troublesome pinch point. Like you, I sometimes do this if I am blocked by the traffic flow, but I’d rather not if I can negotiate back into the traffic stream. I adopt this coping strategy as I suffer more close overtakes on the approach to pinch points when 3 feet or so from the road edge as cars want to beat me to the pinch point . That said, I have also been on the receiving end of impatient drivers unnecessarily squeezing past me in primary. As the latter consequence is less frequent, I choose to play the odds as I see them. I ride defensively and defer to traffic when it keeps me safe, but I would not adhere to your methods as they are predicated on obeisance to motorised vehicles.

We don’t know the taxi driver would have passed him with more room - he might or might not have (the former is your assumption because it dovetails with your viewpoint). I have already explained that cars tend to give cyclists less room than they give cars when overtaking. 

Sadly, we do not have film of your cycling to compare with Magnatom’s...

Finally, I have never called you a troll, or put you on ignore, (like many other people seem to do) as your viewpoint is valid and I suspect it would represent the opinions of many other cyclists/motorists.


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

Thanks origamist. Very well put. 

I should add that I call col a troll for very good reason. A thread was removed due to his assault on my character with his comments regarding my honesty.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (12 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Thanks origamist. Very well put.
> 
> I should add that I call col a troll for very good reason. A thread was removed due to his assault on my character with his comments regarding my honesty.



You lying bas**rd!!


----------



## Riding in Circles (12 Jan 2009)

I think Mag courts confrontation on the roads, while I think he is a good enough chap I think he is the cause for many of his own problems while cycling, sorry Mag but that's my opinion on it. I think Col trolls as can be seen by his final line.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> I think Mag courts confrontation on the roads, while I think he is a good enough chap I think he is the cause for many of his own problems while cycling, sorry Mag but that's my opinion on it. I think Col trolls as can be seen by his final line.



Crikey Ian, that's a bit shocking coming from you!


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> I think Mag courts confrontation on the roads, while I think he is a good enough chap I think he is the cause for many of his own problems while cycling, sorry Mag but that's my opinion on it. I think Col trolls as can be seen by his final line.




....and you are free to have it!  Of course I would disagree!

See Lee, there is a way of saying things that doesn't wind people up. Catrike and I have had differences of opinion in the past, but I have never thought of him as a troll. Despite what you say (over and over again!) I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, or thinking I am in the wrong. Debate is one of the prime reasons for me posting my videos. If I didn't accept criticism, then why would I be posting videos.

BM, I'm having a bit of a debate along the same sort of lines as you on my official close pass video, with embracepragmatism. He just joined youtube to debate with me. I have had some suspicions that it could be someone on here......


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

Origamist is right though - those four are present. Sure, they can be mitigated, but they don't add to your safety.


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Learn to live with it and not get wound up or get the bus into work.




Lee, I think this is where I fundamentally differ from you. You want to just get on with it, and are willing to accept the way things are. I think that things can be improved and am willing to do something about it.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I think he has a point though BM, we have all had our fair share of ''close overtakes'' it is unfortunately one of those things now though on our roads. Learn to live with it and not get wound up or get the bus into work. (or go recumbent)



Yeah, but I'm just surprised that he thinks Maggers courts confrontation. I doubt that very much, personally, even if I don't happen to agree with Maggers' riding in this specific situation.

I've yet to see Magnatom court conflict and cause trouble on the roads. Sure, he might not back down from abuse and bullies, but that's not the same thing at all. He's just going about his normal commute in a legal and safe way after all, not shouting out "feck ye all, I'll have you" [1] and waving his fist at them.

[1] Maybe someone can substitute some better/funnier/more accurate Jockinese here.


----------



## Riding in Circles (12 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Crikey Ian, that's a bit shocking coming from you!



No, I really do think he is a good chap.


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Why did you get wound up though?



 Very good! Not wound up as such, probably the wrong word, irritated perhaps, hmmm, still not the right word. It just makes me want to .

You just come across as if you are trying to score points, rather than take the argument forward. Maybe as BM says, you do have something to say, if only you would take a different approach to say it.

I've changed my cycling over the years because of comments on here and on youtube. I've learned a lot from being willing to listen to what others have said. How about trying to change your approach to writing your posts? Isn't i worth seeing if it would help?


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> No, I really do think he is a good chap.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Never in a month of Sundays.



And yet things do change and get better. I've seen a huge improvement in the behaviour and driving of bus drivers in London in the last five years. I reckon that's mostly due to the increasing numbers of cyclists, and due to those who've made the effort to complain.

If you don't do anything Lee, you're helping to guarantee that nothing will improve.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Buses perhaps but never Joe Bloggs out in their car. Which lets face it there are far more cars then there is buses/HGV



And company drivers? I reckon I've had an effect on those I've videoed and reported, so more cyclists doing this will result in more liveried drivers realising that consequences will come to bear on them. It's a trickle through effect.


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, but I'm just surprised that he thinks Maggers courts confrontation. I doubt that very much, personally, even if I don't happen to agree with Maggers' riding in this specific situation.
> 
> I've yet to see Magnatom court conflict and cause trouble on the roads. Sure, he might not back down from abuse and bullies, but that's not the same thing at all. He's just going about his normal commute in a legal and safe way after all, not shouting out "feck ye all, I'll have you" [1] and waving his fist at them.
> 
> [1] Maybe someone can substitute some better/funnier/more accurate Jockinese here.



 Reading this made me laugh. It got me thinking about what goes through my mind when I am commuting. Not much really. I certainly don't think,

'_hmm, I think there is a car behind me, I wonder if I can catch him on camera....'_

In fact thinking more deeply about it, I really can't recall thinking anything in particular on this mornings commute. I think you go into concentrate mode, where your just thinking of getting from A to B. I suppose it's a bit like when I do judo. I can't remember some of my best throws. Not because I have poor memory, but because at the time, your brain is fully focussed on the task and not wasting energy trying to remember things. 

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that I certainly don't go out courting incidents. I would be mad to do that. It would only take one small misjudgement from me to turn a intended incident nasty! I'm not that skillful a cyclist! Maybe you can agree with this point Lee?


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> And company drivers? I reckon I've had an effect on those I've videoed and reported, so more cyclists doing this will result in more liveried drivers realising that consequences will come to bear on them. It's a trickle through effect.




...and possibly taxi drivers. As part of my complaint I have suggested a campaign with the licencing authority. Any campaign of course would have to be carefully targeted, i.e. not coming across as us against them, or us telling them what to do, but a joint campaign highlighting shared interests, problems etc.

Also remember there are excellent examples of attitudes changing, drink driving, seatbelts, and as time goes on, mobile phone use. Things can change.


----------



## Riding in Circles (12 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Crikey Ian, that's a bit shocking coming from you!



Don't get me wrong, I don't think he causes all the problems, also some of what he has reported as bad driving isn't always as clear as he seems to think. The instance in this OP is clearly bad driving although I'm not sure I would have taken primary quite so soon, it is obvious that the car is behind and may well have made the pass sooner and safely if mag had been riding less aggressively, but that is supposition on my part as I was not there and not all the information needed is available from the aspect of the video.


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> These four main disadvantages are easily addressed though. First thing I do if I stop is look behind me, you can see what the traffic is doing and easily react to it.
> 
> At lower speeds your bike is just as mobile as it is when you are going at speed, you just need to know how to use the rear brake and still turn the pedals. If you have ever done a U-turn on a mbike you will know what I mean.



Balancing a bike at lower speeds is unquestionably harder than cruising at 15mph. Do you remember kids struggling with slow bike races at school? A tip for you which I found helpful: cylce slowly in tight circles - it's a good way of improving your balance at lower speeds.

The problem with stopping by the side of the road and monitoring traffic is that you lose the benefits of being a cyclist - you are now burdened by your bike if you need to move quickly. 

All strategies have plus and negative points, your approach is just another...


----------



## MacB (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Why did you get wound up though?



That's the bit I don't get, not that he got wound up, but that you seem to feel that's such a cardinal sin. It really is a matter of perspective, from where I'm sitting I thought he exercised remarkable restraint Though I can see the arguements on road position and I'd probably opt for Cols' super safe apporach(because I'm a wuss like that) I see 4 seperate issues here:-

did his riding position contribute to pushing a voaltile driver over the edge?...maybe how can we know

would things have been different had he been in a more 'servile' position?....maybe how can we know

was his reaction to the driver too aggressive and therefore a further potential flashpoint and a negative contribution to cycling as a whole?....perspective, I might have chinned the guy

can any errors by a cyclist justify the use of a car as a weapon in response?...NEVER


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I don't see how you are burdened by a bike? I have never seen a bit or road where there is no where to go, whether it be the path that peds use or the grass verge.


Why should you have to go onto the pavement/verge though? 

Col's approach is (IMO) way too servile and, without a doubt, no-one will change their attitudes towards cyclists if we all behave like that (because we'd be moving out of their way, as they expect from us). 

Also, if no-one complains about bad driving then nothing will change that way either.... 

On the flip side though, if loads of cyclists still do the things that annoy car drivers (RLJ / ride on pavements / ride with no lights etc.) then this will help them stick to their notions about cyclists having no rightful place on the road.

It requires action and change from both 'sides'.


----------



## col (12 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Thanks origamist. Very well put.
> 
> I should add that I call col a troll for very good reason. A thread was removed due to his assault on my character with his comments regarding my honesty.



Like i said,i say it how i see it,i gave you a choice of how it seemed to me,you picked the worse of the two and capitalised on it,i wonder why you did that?And as for an assault on character,a little dramatic dont you think?
With what you have said to me i could claim the same,but i dont as its a debate.Not a competition on who can insinuate and use words to try to annoy or upset,but keep it in such a way that there are excuses and reasons which can be used to counter such an exagerated term.The post was removed because you lost your temper and got someone to remove it,not because of this assault you speak,iv seen worse on here by far not removed,i wonder why that is,im guessing the posters didnt go shouting about them to a friend and threatening to leave the forum.
I stand by my opinion on how you cycle,in some instances it does no good for cyclists as a whole,yet you will use assumption of safety as the reasons you did or do it,ie there might have been ice,there might have been debris so i stayed on primary for my safety.I think that this has shown it to have safety flaws,like the squeeze pass,which i would say is a lot more dangerous than there being a posibility of ice or debris on the edge of the road.I know which one i would rather contend with.
Its already been shown that when you have these incidents,its counter productive to cyclists as the driver goes away having a difference with one,so the only other reason could be that you will not give or choose a safer option because you dont want to lose time on the trip,or just dont want to give to a vehicle,and would rather push your right to be there than take a safer and slower option?Whatever the reason is,you put other people at risk when these incidences happen,like the traffic on the other side of the road when a squeeze crosses the centre and causes cars on the other side to react to this pass.I know,your going to say it wasnt your fault ,the driver chose to do this.But you have to realise that there are repercussions to your actions,and if you hadnt have stayed in primary for so long,this might not happen,and if it did you wouldnt be responsible in any way,but if there had been a collision with oncoming cars by this squeeze pass,you would have contributed in some way no matter how small.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> As I have said this has no effect on Joe Bloggs inn their car which far outweigh the number of buses/hgv'd/company drivers out there on our british roads today. I quite like having to deal with close passes anyway, keeps you sharp.



But why would you assume that bus drivers and company drivers don't drive their own cars? Of course they do, and behaviour in the company vehicle is certain to trickle to the private vehicle in many cases. You're also assuming that everyone who got in trouble will *never* tell anyone else. I bet some will, and that again will have an effect on other drivers. It's the whole trickle down effect.

Activism is known to have an effect, and it's known to work in other spheres, so of course it's going to work here too.


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> No it is not, I can do slow circles on my bike all day. Using the rear brake and still turning the pedals putting drive through the bike. Go out and try it now you will be amazed at the stuff you can do. That is why I said about doing a U-turn on a mbike because it is essentially the same principle.
> 
> I don't see how you are burdened by a bike? I have never seen a bit or road where there is no where to go, whether it be the path that peds use or the grass verge.



Are you suggesting it is as easy to ride a bike at 2mph as at 15mph? The fact that you can control your bike at lower speeds is not the issue - handling a bike at very slow speeds is harder than at more usual cycling speeds, say 15mph. You are the first person I have ever come across who thinks differently...

Bikes are cumbersome when you're not riding them - particularly when you are stationary in the road, sat astride the tup-tube, and looking behind you...Escape routes are there, but you're going to get to them slower.


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I don't know, was merely answering the statement made by another member.
> 
> You will never change bad driving, it will always be on our roads the same as cyclists who RLJ, ride without lights etc. There is simply to many people, whose attitudes need to be changed.



I agree, there will always be bad driving, however, *attitudes* can change. Just look at the continent and how in some countries cyclists are given the uppermost respect. Sure there is still bad driving in these countries, however, cyclists are not seen as the obstacle that they are viewed as here.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

Well obv. there will always be bad driving, but there can be a significant social shift in how we view driving, and how driving is a responsibility and a priviledge, not a right.


----------



## jezhiggins (12 Jan 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> I see 4 seperate issues here:-
> 
> did his riding position contribute to pushing a voaltile driver over the edge?...maybe how can we know
> 
> ...



This is why I described what happened to me on Saturday. Some drivers want to get past no matter what and, since they don't come with a label on the front of their car saying "warning! i am a nutter", there's probably nothing you can do to avoid a confrontation (even in the absence of potentially aggravating factors like pinch points). None of us have perfect knowledge of the road and the other traffic, so everybody does the best we can (on the bike or in the car) and have to trust others to do likewise. 

Incidents like Mag's and mine and others described here occur when somebody deliberately violates that trust. There's nothing that can excuse that.


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> No, but it is just as easy with practise. Controlling a bike at slow speeds is an art like filtering, a pleasure to do and watch. If you can control a bike at slow speeds then your handling at speed will be very good.



If you fancy a slow bike race, let me know the time and place!


----------



## col (12 Jan 2009)

jezhiggins said:


> This is why I described what happened to me on Saturday. Some drivers want to get past no matter what and, since they don't come with a label on the front of their car saying "warning! i am a nutter", there's probably nothing you can do to avoid a confrontation (even in the absence of potentially aggravating factors like pinch points). None of us have perfect knowledge of the road and the other traffic, so everybody does the best we can (on the bike or in the car) and have to trust others to do likewise.
> 
> Incidents like Mag's and mine and others described here occur when somebody deliberately violates that trust. There's nothing that can excuse that.




But given that there are so many cars on the roads,can we not say that there is a possibility of coming across impatient or angry drivers more so,so we should try to minimise the effect of this by cycling accordingly?


----------



## col (12 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> If you fancy a slow bike race, let me know the time and place!



Your a track stand champion arnt you


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I don't think this is attitude I think this is to do with the driving culture in some Eurpean countries.
> 
> British motorists have always been known for flying everywhere not caring less about other road users, and there really is to many people to deal with. You ask any motorist why they drive bad, I can almost guarantee that one of answers given will be because other people drive the same.




Of course at one time drinking and driving was part of the *culture*. It still happens but it is frowned upon by the majority. Similarly it is possible to change attitudes/cultural attitudes towards cyclists given time and efforts being placed into campaigns, etc. 

By the way your posts are much less confrontational at the moment


----------



## col (12 Jan 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Col, I don't mean to be rude and I'm sure you're making lots of very good points, but is there any chance you could write your longer posts using sentences and paragraphs? And maybe put spaces between punctuation marks and the start of the following word. Then I might get to the end of one of your posts having read it all without my eyes hurting.



Ok will do


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> You wouldn't be able to keep up!



Remember how you used to say that to me?


----------



## col (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gSj7VL24GV4
> 
> 
> This guy is very good




Bet he cant put a fruit pastel in his mouth without chewing


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> If you say so, I will look forward to the day when every (or most) motorists drive with due care towards other motorists and road users.




Come on Lee, you know that we aren't expecting cycling utopia! However, any improvement (especially here in Glasgow where there are fewer cyclists on the roads) is welcome and is worthwhile campaigning for!


----------



## col (12 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Why should you have to go onto the pavement/verge though?
> 
> Col's approach is (IMO) way too servile and, without a doubt, no-one will change their attitudes towards cyclists if we all behave like that (because we'd be moving out of their way, as they expect from us).
> 
> ...



Thats not quite right,i will move when i can and its in the interests of my and others safety,otherwise ill cycle probably like most do.
I think the way we conduct ourselves on the road has more impact on drivers views of us.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I was amazed how quick you was on your bent.



Well I must admit I wasn't expecting you to ride so quick either, or so well.


----------



## Riding in Circles (12 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Your a track stand champion arnt you



I can remain still for hours and stay clipped in and upright, I can even sleep like that.


----------



## MacB (12 Jan 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> I can remain still for hours and stay clipped in and upright, I can even sleep like that.



I can only remain still once I've successfully fallen on the ground


----------



## boydj (12 Jan 2009)

col said:


> But given that there are so many cars on the roads,can we not say that there is a possibility of coming across impatient or angry drivers more so,so we should try to minimise the effect of this by cycling accordingly?



I agree with Col on this (and little else), but in my opinion, cycling assertively is the way to minimise problems. If you creep about hugging the kerb, then you might as well not be on the road as far as a lot of drivers are concerned. Why should I slow down and delay my commute just to allow car drivers to get to the next set of lights a few seconds sooner? 

In 3 years of daily commuting in Glasgow, my cycling has improved through the advice and experience related on this and other fora. I now cycle much more assertively, and I have far fewer incidents. I have to say though that motorists on my commute are definitely more aware and better-behaved around cyclists than they were three years ago. Standards have definitely improved in general, contrary to some opinions, but the worst of the drivers are every bit as bad as they always were.


----------



## hackbike 666 (12 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> If you say so, I will look forward to the day when every (or most) motorists drive with due care towards other motorists and road users.



That will be when computers drive cars.

*I agree with Col on this (and little else), but in my opinion, cycling assertively is the way to minimise problems. If you creep about hugging the kerb, then you might as well not be on the road as far as a lot of drivers are concerned. Why should I slow down and delay my commute just to allow car drivers to get to the next set of lights a few seconds sooner?*


1) I have been doing it for over 32 years so im not changing something that works for me.(Cycle commuting for 28 years now)

2) Out there it can be like a pantomime and you can put an act on (I do and it generally works with the motons)

It can be a big act...you can pretend you are going for a space and watch the motorists speed up to try and get there before you.
You know generally they are going to get there first so be it.

3) Motons drive what can be offensive weapons whereas if I hit them or they hit me then it won't be good on my part.(or use it against you which has happened to me the odd time)

4) I don't remember this and being told how to cycle in the 1980's by cyclists on here who are relatively inexperienced.Then again the intranet was very small but then again I had no complaints from the Crest Cycle Club with whom I rode with in the mid 70's and early 80's.

Col and I go against the flow so the minority generally gang up on us 
because they are *right* when probably neither side is (fully) right for different reasons.

I have been really put off putting my points across here but I can only take so much.

Im taught to drive trains defensively and I have taught myself to cycle defensively and in both I look ahead a bit like a chess game although slightly faster.

5) Please respect my point of view even though you don't agree with it,like I accept your points of view about riding in primary although I don't agree with doing it *all the time*

6) Don't take this as a rant.

7) Cheers.

8) Yes another point....if there is a small space and a moton is rushing up to it then I would let him through even if it costs me a few seconds.My safety is more important than some comedian in a hurry.

9) Riding in primary blocking the road (we are much slower traffic whilst the moton sticks his foot on the pedal and gets up to 70mph no prob)...Ok this is not a go or a criticism but have you ever been in a car when it's stuck behind a tractor on a small A road and even seen how impatient the motorist gets?

Same basis really although cars can't really bully their ways past a big tractor but can only do a dangerous overtake.Same with a cyclist.


*I agree with Col on this (and little else), but in my opinion, cycling assertively is the way to minimise problems. If you creep about hugging the kerb, then you might as well not be on the road as far as a lot of drivers are concerned. Why should I slow down and delay my commute just to allow car drivers to get to the next set of lights a few seconds sooner?

but in my opinion, cycling assertively is the way to minimise problems.

*Like dangerous overtakes and close passes?

*If you creep about hugging the kerb, then you might as well not be on the road as far as a lot of drivers are concerned. *

Have you actually tried?
Drivers probably think that anyway.

*Why should I slow down and delay my commute just to allow car drivers to get to the next set of lights a few seconds sooner?

*Nice bit of motorist mentality there.

My opinion here is because they have a big metal box which can go at least 70mph if need be.Also it can be driven recklessly at any given speed.

Im a vulnerable road user a bit like a ped.


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2009)

boydj said:


> I agree with Col on this (and little else), but in my opinion, cycling assertively is the way to minimise problems. If you creep about hugging the kerb, then you might as well not be on the road as far as a lot of drivers are concerned. Why should I slow down and delay my commute just to allow car drivers to get to the next set of lights a few seconds sooner?
> 
> In 3 years of daily commuting in Glasgow, my cycling has improved through the advice and experience related on this and other fora. I now cycle much more assertively, and I have far fewer incidents. I have to say though that motorists on my commute are definitely more aware and better-behaved around cyclists than they were three years ago. Standards have definitely improved in general, contrary to some opinions, but the worst of the drivers are every bit as bad as they always were.




I agree that things have improved over the last three years. Some of that is definitely down to more awareness of bikes on the road (there are more of us). I think though, similar to you, I have fewer incidents as I cycle more assertively. One stretch in particular, where I had lots of problems in the past was heading north towards Anniesland cross (i.e see this for an example). I realised that I was staying secondary for too long leading up to this junction, which was resulting in me being squeezed (there are two other examples of this in my videos). I decided to be more assertive and since then (August 2007) I have not had any incidents leading up to the junction. 

Interestingly further back I did have an incident in March 2008 with a car overtaking far too close. I am in the secondary position, certainly not too far out. Mmm. It would seem that close passes do occur when I am in the secondary position as well. Maybe my road position isn't the issue after all.......


----------



## hackbike 666 (12 Jan 2009)

I've had very few incidents last year.So what.

Oh yeah long may it continue.


----------



## jamesgibby (12 Jan 2009)

I read some research recently (unfortunately can't remember where) that cars tend to leave as much space between them and a cyclist as the cyclist leaves between themselves and the curb. Therefore in *general* the further you are out the more room you get. Taking too submisive a secondary position can therfore encourage close passes. I guess for most cyclists it comes down to what they feel is safest.


----------



## hackbike 666 (12 Jan 2009)

What's on paper and what's in real life are two very different things.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> What's on paper and what's in real life are two very different things.



I often see comments like this referring to Cyclecraft, but the fact is that cyclecraft is well written, and the examples and strategies are very applicable to real life. I don't see the difference between on paper, and in reality.

I remember I set a challenge a while ago, asking forum members on the old ACF to try to come up with situations where Cyclecraft was wrong. Not one person succeeded. The closest we had was Nuttycyclist coming up with an esoteric situation where his solution was slightly different and good, but not necessarily better/worse, and it didn't show cyclecraft as wrong. There were a number of people who made comments showing that they either hadn't read the book, or didn't understand what was written in there.


----------



## hackbike 666 (12 Jan 2009)

No I haven't read CycleCraft as it actually held my attention for two seconds...I got bored but it's around somewhere.

Luckily my road behavior isn't like that.


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2009)

jamesgibby said:


> I read some research recently (unfortunately can't remember where) that cars tend to leave as much space between them and a cyclist as the cyclist leaves between themselves and the curb. *Therefore in general the further you are out the more room you get. *Taking too submisive a secondary position can therfore encourage close passes. I guess for most cyclists it comes down to what they feel is safest.



That contradicts what Walker (Uni of Bath) found with his paper on overtaking distances. If you could find the source, I'd be grateful.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Jan 2009)

Got any details of where the Walker paper is online (if it is) as I'd be interested in reading it. Ta!

Edit: As the only Walker paper I know of is the one where he found that wearing a lid tended to have motorists pass closer than when cycling unlidded, which has nothing to do with the road positioning of the cyclist.


----------



## boydj (12 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> *
> but in my opinion, cycling assertively is the way to minimise problems.
> 
> *Like dangerous overtakes and close passes? *Absolutely*
> ...



Hackers, I would not criticise your cycling unless you described a very specific incident where I had a clear opinion. I would guess than an experienced cyclist like you will be assertive when you need to be.

I was cycling to school and work in the 60's and 70's and competing in triathlons in the 80's and 90's, so I am not exactly short of experience. I would say that when I was younger, cars drivers were much better at dealing with cyclists - probably because a lot more people cycled on a regular basis then.


----------



## hackbike 666 (12 Jan 2009)

Yeah strange that one...I don't remember too much of cycling to work in the 80's+90's or having too much trouble....Seems now the driving is worse.

*But you are governed by the rules of the road when you are on your bike.*

No doubt.

*Hackers, I would not criticise your cycling unless you described a very specific incident where I had a clear opinion. I would guess than an experienced cyclist like you will be assertive when you need to be.

I was cycling to school and work in the 60's and 70's and competing in triathlons in the 80's and 90's, so I am not exactly short of experience. I would say that when I was younger, cars drivers were much better at dealing with cyclists - probably because a lot more people cycled on a regular basis then.*

Fair enough.Blimey you must be older than me.

There was a drop off in the 80's and 90's but I think cycling is booming again no?

* I would guess than an experienced cyclist like you will be assertive when you need to be.

*If I didn't take on board what people were saying on here then I think big headedness and all this im experienced and it won't happen to me crap,that would make me arrogant if im not already.

Always looking at my roads positioning and whether it can be improved over a route of which I have commuted over for 20 years.This also applies to close passes and incidents.


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Got any details of where the Walker paper is online (if it is) as I'd be interested in reading it. Ta!
> 
> Edit: As the only Walker paper I know of is the one where he found that wearing a lid tended to have motorists pass closer than when cycling unlidded, which has nothing to do with the road positioning of the cyclist.



Unfortuantely, the more interesting elements of the study got lost in all the helmetblonde wig press releases. It does measure overtaking distances relative to the road edge. I'm off home now, but will find a link later, if no one else does in the meantime...


----------



## wafflycat (12 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I often see comments like this referring to Cyclecraft, but the fact is that cyclecraft is well written, and the examples and strategies are very applicable to real life. I don't see the difference between on paper, and in reality.
> 
> I remember I set a challenge a while ago, asking forum members on the old ACF to try to come up with situations where Cyclecraft was wrong. Not one person succeeded. The closest we had was Nuttycyclist coming up with an esoteric situation where his solution was slightly different and good, but not necessarily better/worse, and it didn't show cyclecraft as wrong. There were a number of people who made comments showing that they either hadn't read the book, or didn't understand what was written in there.



IME, I find that when I cycled where I am effectively in the gutter, I was generally given less room by overtaking vehicles than when cycling further out into the lane. I deliberately tried this over a few days, on the same road, at same time of day, with similar levels of traffic. I certainly don't cycle in the primary position all the time but I most certainly do when I feel my safety requires it. Plus, I found cycling further out from the edge of the road gave me some *escape room* on the odd occasion a motorist overtook too closely. On the odd occasion a motorist overtook me when I was cycling nearer to the gutter, that escape room was denied me. 

I also find a bit of courtesy goes a long way in smoothing on-road relations between cyclist & motorist. I will willingly pull over to the side to allow a bigger vehicle to pass *if it is safe for me to do so*. But it's me who decides when it's safe, not some impatient twerp behind me. I will also acknowledge courtesy shown to me so, for example, if a motorist has stayed patiently behind me whilst I negotiate a pinch point, or a particularly bendy bit of road, once he or she has overtaken me when it's safe to do so, I will acknowledge that courtesy with a thank you wave or verbally - if safe to do so.


----------



## hackbike 666 (12 Jan 2009)

*I certainly don't cycle in the primary position all the time but I most certainly do when I feel my safety requires it.*

Certainly and im happy with this.Also im more aware I have to pull out as peds generally are right on the edge of the pavement.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Jan 2009)

Certainly that Walker paper contradicts my personal experience on day-to-day cycling. And it also goes on to say:-

_*"However, there are also plenty of reasons why riders should not just stick to the road edge, e.g., debris, car doors, and drivers’ attention patterns at junctions."*_


----------



## beanzontoast (12 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> IME, I find that when I cycled where I am effectively in the gutter, I was generally given less room by overtaking vehicles than when cycling further out into the lane. I deliberately tried this over a few days, on the same road, at same time of day, with similar levels of traffic. I certainly don't cycle in the primary position all the time but I most certainly do when I feel my safety requires it. Plus, I found cycling further out from the edge of the road gave me some *escape room* on the odd occasion a motorist overtook too closely. On the odd occasion a motorist overtook me when I was cycling nearer to the gutter, that escape room was denied me.
> 
> I also find a bit of courtesy goes a long way in smoothing on-road relations between cyclist & motorist. I will willingly pull over to the side to allow a bigger vehicle to pass *if it is safe for me to do so*. But it's me who decides when it's safe, not some impatient twerp behind me. I will also acknowledge courtesy shown to me so, for example, if a motorist has stayed patiently behind me whilst I negotiate a pinch point, or a particularly bendy bit of road, once he or she has overtaken me when it's safe to do so, I will acknowledge that courtesy with a thank you wave or verbally - if safe to do so.



That is one of the best posts on the subject I've ever read.


----------



## hackbike 666 (12 Jan 2009)

No I say you should ride with what works for you.What you are happy with.

*I also find a bit of courtesy goes a long way in smoothing on-road relations between cyclist & motorist. I will willingly pull over to the side to allow a bigger vehicle to pass *if it is safe for me to do so*. But it's me who decides when it's safe, not some impatient twerp behind me. I will also acknowledge courtesy shown to me so, for example, if a motorist has stayed patiently behind me whilst I negotiate a pinch point, or a particularly bendy bit of road, once he or she has overtaken me when it's safe to do so, I will acknowledge that courtesy with a thank you wave or verbally - if safe to do so.*

Yes works for me.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Jan 2009)

beanzontoast said:


> That is one of the best posts on the subject I've ever read.



Thank you. I find that trying to be a courteous road user (whatever method of transport I'm using) makes for a less stressful journey.

As an aside, I find that when I'm on my recumbent trike I get given far, far more road room than when I'm on a 'normal' bike. So much so that the very same car/driver who would whizz past me on a narrow lane without so much as any form of acknowledgment that I exist when I'm on any of my 'normal' bikes, will happily stop and wave me forward giving me priority on the very same lane that the day before, they passed me at speed with millimetres between us... go figure. I reckon that it's a combination of size (I take up more room on the recumbent trike - but not that much more in width), the WTF? factor at work and the illusion that being on a recumbent trike I am a disabled cyclist and they don't want to run over the disabled...


----------



## Origamist (13 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Certainly that Walker paper contradicts my personal experience on day-to-day cycling. And it also goes on to say:-
> 
> _*"However, there are also plenty of reasons why riders should not just stick to the road edge, e.g., debris, car doors, and drivers’ attention patterns at junctions."*_



Here is a rebuttal of the Walker paper by a Californian LCI: 

http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/files/A-Draft-Rebuttal-of-Walker-Paper-Rev-4.pdf


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> Here is a rebuttal of the Walker paper by a Californian LCI:
> 
> http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/files/A-Draft-Rebuttal-of-Walker-Paper-Rev-4.pdf




That is a very interesting read. Do you know if this work has ever been published, or are they still planning to publish?


----------



## wafflycat (13 Jan 2009)

Ta. Saved for later reading.


----------



## Origamist (13 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> That is a very interesting read. Do you know if this work has ever been published, or are they still planning to publish?



I'm glad someone reads the links! I'm not sure if it has been published in a journal and peer reviewed.


----------



## wafflycat (13 Jan 2009)

On a slightly different vein but still to do with the amount of space cyclists are given by overtaking traffic..

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> I'm glad someone reads the links! I'm not sure if it has been published in a journal and peer reviewed.



Of course I do. Not everything, but if it is of interest to me. It has encouraged me to re-read the walker paper. I'll read them both in detail and provide my opinion when I get a chance.


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2009)

wafflycat said:


> On a slightly different vein but still to do with the amount of space cyclists are given by overtaking traffic..
> 
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/report/cycle-lanes.pdf




Aye, I've come across this one before. I'm a little wary of this as it doesn't present any proper data, just pictures (which may have been selected with bias), however, I am sure the findings are correct (at least from personal experience). The Walker paper and the rebuttal are very interesting though.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Jan 2009)

It certainly was interesting!


----------



## benborp (13 Jan 2009)

I'd just like to point something our regarding the Californian rebuttal of Walker's research. Their research was carried out on a single stretch of road as opposed to a range of urban roads as Walker states his data was gathered on. Also their road consisted of six lanes with a central divide in California with Californian drivers. I don't think they can argue that their research counters Walker's. Their allowed to have issues with presentation, though following them up with some statistical analysis would be better.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (13 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Still dislike cycle lanes in general, granted some are o.k but in general especially in urban areas they are shite.


This is a first, I agree with Lee!!!


----------



## BentMikey (13 Jan 2009)

benborp said:


> I'd just like to point something our regarding the Californian rebuttal of Walker's research. Their research was carried out on a single stretch of road as opposed to a range of urban roads as Walker states his data was gathered on. Also their road consisted of six lanes with a central divide in California with Californian drivers. I don't think they can argue that their research counters Walker's. Their allowed to have issues with presentation, though following them up with some statistical analysis would be better.



Plus two cyclists riding together have a quite different effect on drivers than does one cyclist on his/her own.


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2009)

I agree with all of the above, but what it does highlight is the fact that the walker data is averaged, and averaged over different roads. It would be valuable to compare stats for different road types, as there are roads and situations where a close pass is more dangerous than others. This might also affect the distance that cars give you.


----------



## Origamist (13 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> I think it is very very hard to compare US roads to British roads. *US roads are far far more cycle friendly then over here*.
> 
> The cyclist part of the road is lovely, wide and smooth, no pot holes to deal with.



Except for the fact that the US has one of the highest KSI rates! Far more than the UK, and pretty much every other European country...


----------



## magnatom (13 Jan 2009)

Origamist said:


> Except for the fact that the US has one of the highest KSI rates! Far more than the UK, and pretty much every other European country...



The problem with the rebuttal is though that they have chosen a very straight road, and it sounds like it wasn't too busy (on one pass there were no overtakes) and there was good lane space. It is certainly interesting, but more needs to be done looking at road types, (straight/not-straight, wide/thin lanes, multi/single lane, fast/slow etc). As I'm sure we are all aware different roads need different road positions tactics etc, so Walkers analysis averages out the interesting data and the rebuttal is to simplistic.


----------



## Origamist (13 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> The problem with the rebuttal is though that they have chosen a very straight road, and it sounds like it wasn't too busy (on one pass there were no overtakes) and there was good lane space. It is certainly interesting, but more needs to be done looking at road types, (straight/not-straight, wide/thin lanes, multi/single lane, fast/slow etc). As I'm sure we are all aware different roads need different road positions tactics etc, so Walkers analysis averages out the interesting data and the rebuttal is to simplistic.



I have not read them for a while. The WCC "paper" is a bit of joke, if I remember correctly. If I get a chance, I'll have a proper look at the w/e.


----------



## fossyant (13 Jan 2009)

55 pages....good grief


----------

