# Muppet



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

I've had a good run of commutes recently. Most drivers have been driving safely and courteously. Yesterday afternoon I mentioned this to a colleague who also cycles. Oops! 

You guessed it, some muppet must have heard me because he decided to break my good run (just a Georgia did for Scotland last night )



This 'chap' starts hitting his horn at me as I have just passed the brow of a hill and I am overtaking another cyclist. I am in the primary road position because I didn't want anyone overtaking me at the brow (dangerous) and because I was overtaking. He then overtakes dangerously (see how close he gets to the oncoming bus and myself) and later says I was at fault because I was in the middle of the road. Yes I was in the middle. That is where I chose to be for my safety I am sorry if I held you up. Oh wait I didn't hold you up at all as I passed you just 50m down the road. Muppet!

At least I stayed polite....


----------



## fossyant (18 Oct 2007)

That was close - had exactly the same last night - passed very very close by a motorist as I was passing another cyclist near a pedestrian island - gave me ohh 4 inches..... and I was probably doing about 25 mph, so hardly slow...


----------



## domtyler (18 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> At least I stayed polite....



To be fair you were so out of breath that you couldn't have done much else. Surprising really as that was not a steep hill by any stretch.


----------



## Emu (18 Oct 2007)

domtyler said:


> To be fair you were so out of breath that you couldn't have done much else. Surprising really as that was not a steep hill by any stretch.



well, that's not a very nice thing to say.


----------



## gazzaputt (18 Oct 2007)

You know you handled it well. 

Deep breath and carry on it's what I'm learning to do.


----------



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

domtyler said:


> To be fair you were so out of breath that you couldn't have done much else. Surprising really as that was not a steep hill by any stretch.





I've just came out of the Clyde Tunnel cycle path just before the start of that video. It certainly gets my breathing going! 

I breath at that rate quite a lot and I can keep going like that for a while. I like to think I am fairly fit. My resting heart rate is about 51 and I recover pretty quick. 

Hey wait a minute, why am I defending myself here


----------



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

gazzaputt said:


> You know you handled it well.
> 
> Deep breath and carry on it's what I'm learning to do.



gazzaputt,

If you listen to the video you will hear me laughing a fair bit. It didn't really upset me, as you say I had it covered. However, I just can't understand the mentality of 'must get past the cyclist at all costs......' 

I just thought I would post it for tetedelacourse to prove that car drivers do shout at us, with no good reason


----------



## Tetedelacourse (18 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> gazzaputt,
> 
> If you listen to the video you will hear me laughing a fair bit. It didn't really upset me, as you say I had it covered. However, I just can't understand the mentality of 'must get past the cyclist at all costs......'
> 
> I just thought I would post it for tetedelacourse to prove that car drivers do shout at us, with no good reason




I can't view it (at work) so I don't believe it happened

It was probably something to do with the football


----------



## Cab (18 Oct 2007)

Sometimes I find that the correct primary position is further out than that, but along that road with the traffic and parked cars you had I think you were in the right position. I wouldn't criticise your cycling there Mag, the fault here is all with the other guy. No point sending it to Plod is there?


----------



## domtyler (18 Oct 2007)

Emu said:


> well, that's not a very nice thing to say.



It's called trying to wind up Magnatom and as usual failing miserably.


----------



## spindrift (18 Oct 2007)

He said what?

"Yeah, and I know about fxxxing ....something"?


----------



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Sometimes I find that the correct primary position is further out than that, but along that road with the traffic and parked cars you had I think you were in the right position. I wouldn't criticise your cycling there Mag, the fault here is all with the other guy. No point sending it to Plod is there?



Nah. He wasn't particularly aggressive when I spoke to him to be honest. Just another driver who thinks cyclists should be in cycle lanes....

Actually I think I could have been a little further out. After the hill I tend to drift back to the secondary position. I didn't drift all the way this time, but I didn't hold as good a primary as I should. Knowing he was there and impatient I should have held firm. I was too timid on this occasion...

Of course that's no excuse for his driving.


----------



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

domtyler said:


> It's called trying to wind up Magnatom and as usual failing miserably.



Aye, I sussed you out a long time ago laddie.


----------



## Cab (18 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Nah. He wasn't particularly aggressive when I spoke to him to be honest. Just another driver who thinks cyclists should be in cycle lanes....
> 
> Actually I think I could have been a little further out. After the hill I tend to drift back to the secondary position. I didn't drift all the way this time, but I didn't hold as good a primary as I should. Knowing he was there and impatient I should have held firm. I was too timid on this occasion...
> 
> Of course that's no excuse for his driving.



It takes a surprising amount of willpower/bloody mindedness to maintain primary position when theres a guy being such an arse behind you. You did pretty well there I thought.


----------



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

spindrift said:


> He said what?
> 
> "Yeah, and I know about fxxxing ....something"?



I think it was something along the lines of:

"what would I want to go fxxxing about cycling for", although I can't be 100% on that.


----------



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> It takes a surprising amount of willpower/bloody mindedness to maintain primary position when theres a guy being such an arse behind you. You did pretty well there I thought.



Yes but I can be pretty bloody minded. Just wasn't on this occasion. 

Of course my road positioning was much better than the other cyclists!


----------



## Elmer Fudd (18 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> ..."what would I want to go fxxxing about cycling for", although I can't be 100% on that.



Answer :- " To relieve your pent up aggression ".


----------



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> Answer :- " To relieve your pent up aggression ".



Yes its a shame I didn't make that out at the time, I could have started to recite all the wonderful reasons for taking up cycling......


----------



## col (18 Oct 2007)

It was a great example of how vehicles percieve cyclists, as some thing that is just holding them up.I wonder if he would have commented if it was an electric milk float over taking?I doubt it.


----------



## HLaB (18 Oct 2007)

No sound on the office PC, so I can only go by what I see and that overtake (if you can call it that) was pants.


----------



## magnatom (18 Oct 2007)

Col,

Maybe I should add a trailer with some milk bottles in it to the back of the bike. Would be good for keeping me fit as well!

HLab,

With no sound you've missed me being tooted at, me swearing a bit, chap in car calling me a fxxxing idiot for being in the middle of the road, me asking him if he knew anything about cycling, chap asking why would I want to cycle, me pointing out the camera, chap saying he didn't care, me saying have a look at youtube tomorrow, chap drives off and I laugh a bit and wave a cheery goodbye.

Oh and I forgot, some heavy breathing on my part 

Who needs sound


----------



## HLaB (18 Oct 2007)

When I got home, I watch it/ listened to it. The bloke just confirmed how much of a spanner he is. 
It also appears to me you were just going to carry on at the roundabout till spanner opened his gub, he seemed to be looking for an argument.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Oct 2007)

I would suggest not asking drivers if they know what the primary position is since that might make you sound like a bike geek. I'm not sure what a better suggestion is though, perhaps asking him "Don't you know how to overtake properly?".


----------



## Steve Austin (18 Oct 2007)

i don't want to join in with the congratulatory backslapping tbh.
you were riding too far out, you then chased the driver down to shout at him, and tbh are an embarrassment to the cycling community. 

Why you feel the need to video drivers that you have provoked into overtaking you by riding slowly in the middle of the road (sorry primary position) and pretending that you are a victim is beyond me.

Learn how to ride defensively not offensively, and leave the camera at home

ride safe out there tom. You are an accident waiting to happen


----------



## BentMikey (19 Oct 2007)

Steve, I'm not sure you paid attention to the video at all, because Magnatom didn't chase down or stop the motorist. The motorist initiated it.

Secondly there's no excusing what the motorist did. I think you're wrong to try and transfer the blame to Magnatom.

Thirdly you're utterly wrong about the camera. It's a very useful tool, for teaching ourselves how to cycle better, for reporting incidents to companies, and for stopping driver aggression immediately.


----------



## Steve Austin (19 Oct 2007)

its all about perception mikey.

Tom was crawling along the road, and wasn't going fast enough to be riding in the middle of the road. you can tell how fast he was going by the fact the bike he was overtaking was hardly moving, the guy wasn't pedaling. if tom needs to ride in the middle of the road for long periods to overtake almost stationary cyclists, then he needs to be aware that cars will get irritated. If Tom was going fast enough to be in the 'middle of the road' he would have been up the arse of the traffic in front. not a good distance behind the cars on the road. you can see the car in front getting further ahead, so Tom isn't keeping up with the speed of traffic, and so IMO should not be riding in the middle of the road.

'FACT' Tom was going noticeable quicker after the car overtook him, and did chase the car down IMO. Then proceeded to shout at the driver 'FACT'

any need to call someone an peanut if you block them by riding slowly in the midddle of the road?

like i said. Tom is an accident waiting to happen, and needs to learn how to ride defensively, not offensively.

of course in my opinion


----------



## Terminator (19 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I would suggest not asking drivers if they know what the primary position is since that might make you sound like a bike geek. I'm not sure what a better suggestion is though, perhaps asking him "Don't you know how to overtake properly?".



Silly question  to ask really Bent Mikey because some of them don't know how to drive responsibly/safetly let alone overtake safetly.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Oct 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> <snippetty snip>
> 'FACT' Tom was going noticeable quicker after the car overtook him, and did chase the car down IMO.



He was going noticeably faster, but that's because he changed from going uphill to downhill after cresting the blind rise. I thought he was making good progress on overtaking the other cyclist, and primary position seems to be justified there given the narrow lane, the blind rise over the bridge, the parked cars, the junction, and the cyclist which he was in the process of overtaking.



Steve Austin said:


> Then proceeded to shout at the driver 'FACT'



Incorrect. If you listen to the video, you'll see that the driver/passenger made some comment as Magnatom passed, and that caused Magnatom to stop when he wasn't going to, and comment back.



Steve Austin said:


> any need to call someone an peanut if you block them by riding slowly in the midddle of the road?



That seems quite reasonable when the idiot overtook so dangerously in the face of oncoming traffic.

What I think is contemptible is that you want to blame Magnatom for the driver's poor overtaking, instead of blaming the driver for not holding back. If the driver did hold back, he wouldn't have lost even a second of journey time, as the time lost whilst going a little slower behind Magnatom would have been saved by not having to wait quite as long in the queue at the roundabout.

Can you explain to us all why you think it's fine to justify that driver's behaviour?



Steve Austin said:


> like i said. Tom is an accident waiting to happen, and needs to learn how to ride defensively, not offensively.
> 
> of course in my opinion



I think Magnatom's riding was fine. It was assertive, but appropriate for the conditions.

Here's a challenge for you. Video some of your commute and put it online for us to look at. I'm betting that your riding could do with some improving. Given your comments, my guess is that it may not be up to Magnatom's standard of riding and that you'll be riding far too submissively. Of course, in fairness, everyone's riding could be improved, including my own.

Oh, another thing is that Magnatom's name isn't Tom.


----------



## Steve Austin (19 Oct 2007)

thats me 'proved' wrong then 

like i said. its all about perception. 
he was riding too slowly to be in the middle of the road.
he wasn't keeping up with traffic.
He was riding too far out.
He chased down the acr and initiated an argument.

and my name isn't Steve


----------



## Cab (19 Oct 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> i don't want to join in with the congratulatory backslapping tbh.
> you were riding too far out, you then chased the driver down to shout at him, and tbh are an embarrassment to the cycling community.



Really, I don't think you could be more wrong.

He was in the correct place on the road; a fairly standard primary position. If you don't believe that a cyclist should be in the primary position on a fairly normal road, then start a discussion on that and say why your opinion is so far from the consensus view held by the bulk of responsible cyclists. 

But heres where things start looking really bad for the motorist; if there is someone in front of you who you think is in the wrong position, the correct response isn't to endanger them by passing too closely. Even if you think a bike in front is in the wrong road position you still have to respect their safety. Sounding a horn then passing too close isn't acceptable. Why do you condone that?

Chased him down? I don't get that from the footage. The car stopped at traffic, whats Magna meant to do, stop way behind him to avoid catching him up?



> Why you feel the need to video drivers that you have provoked into overtaking you by riding slowly in the middle of the road (sorry primary position) and pretending that you are a victim is beyond me.
> 
> Learn how to ride defensively not offensively, and leave the camera at home
> 
> ride safe out there tom. You are an accident waiting to happen



I just don't get your attitude here at all. You're blaming the victim for someone else breaking the law. Seems barking to me.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Oct 2007)

How can you claim Magnatom initiated the argument when the car driver/passenger was the first to abuse? You can hear it quite clearly on the video, and that's what causes Magnatom to stop.



Steve Austin said:


> and my name isn't Steve



No shoot Sherlock.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (19 Oct 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> i don't want to join in with the congratulatory backslapping tbh.
> you were riding too far out, you then chased the driver down to shout at him, and tbh are an embarrassment to the cycling community.
> 
> Why you feel the need to video drivers that you have provoked into overtaking you by riding slowly in the middle of the road (sorry primary position) and pretending that you are a victim is beyond me.
> ...



I have to chip in here too.

Magnatom wasn't riding too far out, he was assuming a safe road position for that stretch of road, and when he comes on here I bet he will say that he would have assumed that positioning had that other cyclist been there or not. 

I certainly would have positioned myeslf that far out in the lane _in advance of the approaching hazard_, for my own safety. The very fact that the cager beeped at Magnatom means that he was going to overtake on the blind crest, with oncoming traffic in the other lane. 

*The application of Cyclecraft's techniques is defensive cycling.* You want Magnatom to cycle submissively.

Why do you think that a cyclist has less right to be using the road than a motorvehicle?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (19 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> (to quote Bentmikey, snippety snip)
> 
> Why do you think that a cyclist has less right to be using the road than a motorvehicle?



To be fair JRG, Steve has at no point put forward this position.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (19 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> To be fair JRG, Steve has at no point put forward this position.



Thats a fair comment, I'll rephrase myself to make more sense 

I meant that SA's attitude suggests to me that they feel that bicycles are guests on motorists roads.


----------



## Membrane (19 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> He was in the correct place on the road; a fairly standard primary position.



I don't agree that there is a thing such as "the correct place on the road". Positioning is affected by many variables, road related, traffic related, the individual cyclist involved, weather related, etc. etc.

On the bridge itself (where the actual overtake took place) there was IMO no reason for Magnatom to be in the primary position (no risk of being door'ed (no parked cars there), the other cyclist was still too far ahead).

Doing something because "you have a right to" doesn't mean that you should or that it is a smart thing to do. There are pro's and cons to assuming a primary position. One thing is certain, if it hinders others it will provoke a negative reaction. To then complain about that is a bit rich IMO.

I facilitate others to make good progress by staying out of their way where I can. Only when my safety is actually at risk will I assume the primary road position (roundabouts, actual risk of being door'ed). There are a considerable number of people on the road who will take offence to cyclist hindering them (rightly or wrongly), the pragmatic way is to accept that, because "asserting your right", aka "teaching them a lesson" sooo does not work, it will do the exact opposite, it causes others to dislike cyclists even more.

Even John Franklin (the author of Cyclecraft) advocates using *the secondary riding position when it is safe and reasonable to allow faster traffic to pass*. The latter was the case in this situation.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Oct 2007)

Membrane said:


> I don't agree that there is a thing such as "the correct place on the road". Positioning is affected by many variables, road related, traffic related, the individual cyclist involved, weather related, etc. etc.



Wrong. There is such a thing, but as you say it is situation specific. In this instance, I think Magnatom's place was correct.


----------



## Cab (19 Oct 2007)

Membrane said:


> I don't agree that there is a thing such as "the correct place on the road". Positioning is affected by many variables, road related, traffic related, the individual cyclist involved, weather related, etc. etc.



True...



> On the bridge itself (where the actual overtake took place) there was IMO no reason for Magnatom to be in the primary position (no risk of being door'ed (no parked cars there), the other cyclist was still too far ahead).



Untrue. The primary road position isn't the place to be only when there is a problem making that the best place, the primary position is the place to be unless there is a reason not to be. 



> Doing something because "you have a right to" doesn't mean that you should or that it is a smart thing to do. There are pro's and cons to assuming a primary position. One thing is certain, if it hinders others it will provoke a negative reaction. To then complain about that is a bit rich IMO.



Again, I don't agree. Yeah, if you hold primary for ages and don't give space to let someone pass when it is safe to do so you're being a git. But Mag didn't do that; there wasn't space to safely bass between him and the oncoming traffic, primary position tells the driver behind you 'no way, it ain't safe'. To complain about someone then risking themselves _and_ oncoming traffic to get past the cyclist who has taken the correct road position for the road and conditions seems reasonable.



> I facilitate others to make good progress by staying out of their way where I can. Only when my safety is actually at risk will I assume the primary road position (roundabouts, actual risk of being door'ed). There are a considerable number of people on the road who will take offence to cyclist hindering them (rightly or wrongly), the pragmatic way is to accept that, because "asserting your right", aka "teaching them a lesson" sooo does not work, it will do the exact opposite, it causes others to dislike cyclists even more.



Theres nothing wrong with picking a road position that lets people past if they are faster than you and it is safe to do so. I don't tink anyone here would be likely to disagree.#



> Even John Franklin (the author of Cyclecraft) advocates using *the secondary riding position when it is safe and reasonable to allow faster traffic to pass*. The latter was the case in this situation.



And thats where your reasoning breaks down. I wouldn't consider secondary safe there, I'm not entirely sure why you do.


----------



## spindrift (19 Oct 2007)

It's a humpback bridge or hill, the driver was unsighted and took a silly overtake for no good reason.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Wrong. There is such a thing, but as you say it is situation specific. In this instance, I think Magnatom's place was correct.



I think it's more appropriate to say there's no such thing as _*in*_correct position - it's only incorrect if it's unsafe, causes unnecessary hindrance or is illegal. Anything else is correct imho.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (19 Oct 2007)

> *Membrane*
> On the bridge itself (where the actual overtake took place) there was IMO no reason for Magnatom to be in the primary position (no risk of being door'ed (no parked cars there), the other cyclist was still too far ahead).



I have to disagree here, the nature of the bridge itself was the hazard which warrented primary. If the driver were to have overtaken on it, he would have been forced to squeeze Magnatom as the video shows 3 cars crest the bridge before Magnatom clears it himself.

Unfortunately Mr Muppet couldn't wait to get past.

I have thought a lot about why drivers feel that cyclists are in the way, and have come to the conclusion that it is basically an extension of the motorway effect - whereby the brain adapts to processing what what the eyes are seeing at a certain speed by narrowing the picture profile (the active part of the drivers vision, what they react to), basically a tunnel vision effect.

When the vehicle suddenly slows down the brain is not able to instantly widen the picture profile, it needs to work out how much more information it can take it before doing it. This leads to the sense that the vehicle is travelling much slower that it actually is, due to the picture profile being too narrow. Too much information is excluded from anaylsis, in a way it is giving the brain too long to look at the environment, creating a distorted sense of speed as not enough changes / is happening.

I believe this to be the primary reason that drivers get so upset when they have to wait behind a cyclist, or even a much slower driver. Below I have put together a very rough example of how crazy it is to get so aggrivated.

In Magnatom's clip the car would have been behind him for a _maximum_ of 32 seconds until it was back in the lane infront of Magnatom (basically when he finishes saying "A$$hole"). 

32 seconds. 

That is 1.19% of the average car commute time in the UK* spent at a _slightly_ lower speed. 

A big enough deal to beep? A big enough deal to shout abuse about? A big enough deal to endager someone's life?

I think not.


_______________________

* Average commute time in the UK in 2003 was 45mins


Source

BBC, "UK commute 'longest in Europe'", 2003, [Online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3085647.stm


----------



## bonj2 (19 Oct 2007)

I think regardless of whether magnatom's road positioning infuriated the driver, this is preferential to him not noticing him. Even though he was raging and beeping, he was focussing on magnatom. I know I for one would rather be beeped than be overtaken haphazardly, get knocked off and run the risk of ending up handicapped, all because some goon was unaware of my position because I hadn't commanded enough attention.


----------



## Membrane (19 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> The primary road position isn't the place to be only when there is a problem making that the best place, the primary position is the place to be unless there is a reason not to be.



That is repeating some rule, but you provide no argumentation as to why you believe that to be true.



> Yeah, if you hold primary for ages and don't give space to let someone pass when it is safe to do so you're being a git.



As I said this was the case at the point where the conflict occured (on the bridge): no parked cars, no junctions, good road surface, cyclist to be overtaken still too far ahead.



> But Mag didn't do that; there wasn't space to safely bass between him and the oncoming traffic



I'm not defending the dangerous overtake by the motorist, I'm saying that when you take a primary position, some people will squeeze by you, in some cases to "teach the cyclist a lesson". Assuming the primary position should therefore be minimized to situations where there is a real danger to the cyclist if he were in the secondary position.



> Primary position tells the driver behind you 'no way, it ain't safe'.



That way of thinking is part of the "I'll teach them road manners" attitude that in practice only results in an increase in adverserial behaviour on the roads. There are a fair number of muppets on the road, they won't be "taught manners or good sense" by other road users, human nature just doesn't work like that.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (19 Oct 2007)

> *Membrane*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because it is the most visible, with the most room to manover.


----------



## magnatom (19 Oct 2007)

I'm not at work today so Im only passing by the computer. Seems things have moved on a bit!

Suffice it to say I always take the primary position at that hill (I am going about 18mph by the way). I have had too many other stupid overtaking manouvers at this hill not to take the primary position. Look at my other videos.

I also agree that the primary position argument wasn't the best. I didn't think he was going to say anything so he caught me out a little. I have used a better one (I saw written elsewhere)

Me: Have you passed your test?
Driver: Of course I have you.....
Me: would you overtake me like that on your test?
Driver: errrrr

Worked a treat when I used it (I might have it on video somewhere!). Thats the one I should have used here.


----------



## palinurus (19 Oct 2007)

col said:


> It was a great example of how vehicles percieve cyclists, as some thing that is just holding them up.I wonder if he would have commented if it was an electric milk float over taking?I doubt it.



I doubt it too, although I did witness a driver recently honking one of those street sweeper things which had held him up for a couple hundred yards.


----------



## Cab (19 Oct 2007)

Membrane said:


> That is repeating some rule, but you provide no argumentation as to why you believe that to be true.



Forgive me, I was hoping to avoid turning this discussion into 'pros and cons of primary position'. If you'll permit, might we agree to differ on this point in this discussion; I would be happy to discuss that in a new thread if you want to start it.



> As I said this was the case at the point where the conflict occured (on the bridge): no parked cars, no junctions, good road surface, cyclist to be overtaken still too far ahead.



The bridge is reason enough to maintain primary position there, considering the visibility and traffic I'd have thought. 



> I'm not defending the dangerous overtake by the motorist, I'm saying that when you take a primary position, some people will squeeze by you, in some cases to "teach the cyclist a lesson". Assuming the primary position should therefore be minimized to situations where there is a real danger to the cyclist if he were in the secondary position.



I really can't agree with you there. Yeah, there will be a small minority who will squeeze past too close, but if you adopt the secondary position more often than not nearly all motorists pass too close. I thought that was fairly well established?



> That way of thinking is part of the "I'll teach them road manners" attitude that in practice only results in an increase in adverserial behaviour on the roads. There are a fair number of muppets on the road, they won't be "taught manners or good sense" by other road users, human nature just doesn't work like that.



You don't ride in primary specifically to teach the guy behind some manners; but again, this will soon turn into a 'primary vs. secondary' debate, which we should perhaps start in a seperate discussion.


----------



## Tynan (19 Oct 2007)

imho, you pulled out to pass far far too early, I don't see that hill as a problem, more dangerous to be wide going over it than not surely?

and I didn't see his overtake as all that bad, bit close granted but I'd suggest you been holding his progress up for some time with little apparent justification

sorry, just my opinion (relative to London rush hour most likely), not looking for a row, just my opinion


----------



## Bob (19 Oct 2007)

This is very funny! Your head said - bike in front, must pass, must pass, look round, pull out... But your legs said - no way!


----------



## Terminator (19 Oct 2007)

I've been on here two seconds and I have to reply to this :-/

*Unfortunately Mr Muppet couldn't wait to get past.

*Isn't this a normal thing?


----------



## magnatom (19 Oct 2007)

Again just a quicky, but I would point out I take that road position all the time, regardless of there being another cyclist or not. Look at my other videos next to that hill, I have good reason to take the primary position!!


----------



## col (19 Oct 2007)

palinurus said:


> I doubt it too, although I did witness a driver recently honking one of those street sweeper things which had held him up for a couple hundred yards.




Hence the waste of time trying to teach them otherwise,let em passed if its safe,simple as that


----------



## BentMikey (19 Oct 2007)

Membrane said:


> That way of thinking is part of the "I'll teach them road manners" attitude that in practice only results in an increase in adverserial behaviour on the roads. There are a fair number of muppets on the road, they won't be "taught manners or good sense" by other road users, human nature just doesn't work like that.



I've no clue where you get the idea that Magnatom is trying to teach someone a lesson here. It's nothing to do with that, but simply the road positioning to take for his best chance of safety.


----------



## Terminator (19 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Hence the waste of time trying to teach them otherwise,let em passed if its safe,simple as that



Thats what I try to do.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Oct 2007)

I don't think it's about trying to hold anyone up either, or to teach them a lesson. It's about road positioning to give yourself the best chance of safety.

I often get thanked for making it easy for a driver to overtake me, but only when it's safe for me to do so, and I'll assume Magnatom does the same. This isn't an appropriate place to facilitate an overtake.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (19 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I don't think it's about trying to hold anyone up either, or to teach them a lesson. It's about road positioning to give yourself the best chance of safety.
> 
> *I often get thanked for making it easy for a driver to overtake me, but only when it's safe for me to do so, and I'll assume Magnatom does the same. This isn't an appropriate place to facilitate an overtake.*



Exactly. My safety comes first, then, when it is safe I am happy to assume a low secodnary and wave a driver through. Or like in the third video of mine in the video section, pause briefly at a good point and wave the following vehicle past.

Safety is and allways will be number one priority for me.


----------



## Terminator (19 Oct 2007)

Strange they seem to hang back for me when I don't want them to.


----------



## magnatom (21 Oct 2007)

Ok.

I have time to reply more fully. Here goes.

Steve Austin,

I am very sorry that you feel I am an embarrassment. I feel so ashamed, so I do.... Well ok I don't. So I provoked the driver to overtake.  There really isn't an answer to that. Maybe your right, maybe I turned round and goaded him, sticking my tongue out etc and shouted 'you can't overtake me'. Maybe the camera just didn't pick this up??

Look at these videos, 




Here is one I haven't made public before, but happened a while ago



Look how close they pass me and the car opposite. What if that car coming the other way had been overtaking as well. That would have been nasty. That is why I decided to take a more agressive/defensive approach to this hill. 

These illustrate why I take the primary position here. It had nothing to do with overtaking the cyclist (he chose to cycle in the gutter, I chose the primary position). His presence was incidental to my road positioning. I was not bothered about passing him, and in fact I held of passing until I got over the hill. It's dangerous to overtake on a blind hill, I want to keep as much swerve room on my left as possible, don't you agree?!

As for chasing the car. I did not. In fact as he passed me I did react and hold my hand in the air in a 'what was that' fashion, he was obviously watching me and at this point he braked as if he was going to stop (non-youtube version of video shows this better). He decided to continue on his way, which was the right decision.

I passed his car, deciding to leave it, but he started swearing at me. I don't like bullies so I decided to stop and find out what his problem was. It's all on video, why don't you take a look?

Oh and your right. I wasn't keeping up with the traffic. This is a 30mph road, but traffic routinely goes at 40mph. All the more reason to be a visible as possible approaching and passing over a blind hill.


Membrane,

The primary position is the right place to be here. I can assure you having cycled this road on many many occasions before. I have prevented a number of incidents on that bridge by taking the primary position. As a driver, you can't see beyond that hill. Cars sometimes overtake coming the other way. By being in the primary position I discourage overtaking on my side, reducing the risk of an accident. My only mistake was to not hold that position more aggressively after passing the bridge. That allowed the muppet to do a silly manouver and endanger me, the oncoming vehicle and his two passengers. Was that my fault?

Where and when it is safe, after that bridge, I generally take the secondary position. However, there are times depending on traffic that I keep my primary position for as long as required to keep myself safe. Am I wrong in doing that?


----------



## Membrane (21 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> The primary position is the right place to be here. I can assure you having cycled this road on many many occasions before. I have prevented a number of incidents on that bridge by taking the primary position. As a driver, you can't see beyond that hill. Cars sometimes overtake coming the other way. By being in the primary position I discourage overtaking on my side, reducing the risk of an accident.



You are trying to play policeman. You are responsible for your own actions, not other people's behaviour. Others may make mistakes, it is for us to deal with any consequences of such mistakes, not try and play plod and pretend that you are blocking others for their own good.

The road at that point is plenty wide enough for a car to safely pass a cyclist who cycles to the left whilst maintaining a *reasonable* distance the curb (<= 70cm). That give us enough room to deal with the occasional driver who overtakes us too closely for it to be actually dangerous (not just annoying).

Regrettably there is a lot of "this is *MY* roadspace, and don't you dare encroach it" attitude on the roads amongst all road users, including cyclists. The driver thought that you were in *his* space, you thought that it was *your* space. The result was a conflict that could have been avoided if either of you would have had the good sense to abandon this notion of ownership of roadspace. But neither of your egos could handle that. You "stood your ground" and you now want to be congratulated for it, I'm not chiming in. I strongly believe that people should dispense of their ego before venturing onto the roads as ego is a big factor in the lack of tolerance that I see around me. The adverse effect of ego on behaviour is directly proportional to congestion, the more congested our roads get, the more detrimental the effect of people's ego on their behaviour.

The notion that cyclists shouldn't adopt a "submissive" attitude on the roads is another example of that. It is a sign of feeling inferior. Someone who is confident about their worth doesn't need to "hold their ground". The bigger person accepts the faults in others that he cannot change and will direct his actions towards a positive outcome.



> My only mistake was to not hold that position more aggressively after passing the bridge. That allowed the muppet to do a silly manouver and endanger me, the oncoming vehicle and his two passengers. Was that my fault?



We are all responsible for our own behaviour. The driver was at fault for his reckless overtaking. You provoked his behaviour for no justifiable reason.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (21 Oct 2007)

> *Membrane*
> <snip>
> Others may make mistakes, it is for us to deal with any consequences of such mistakes,
> </snip>



Hard to do when dead.



> *Membrane*
> play plod and pretend that you are blocking others for their own good.



Taking primary is not about playing policeman at all, and it is not for others good either! Taking primary is about _managing risk_ and maximising your personal safety. 

Is holding a car at a slightly slower speed for _30 seconds_ in the interest of your own safety really such a big deal?! I gave an example here of just what kind of effect Magnatom would have had on this driver (assuming their journey was a national average of 45mins long). The driver would have spent 1.19% of his journey travelling _slightly_ slower.

Do you not think it pathetic that this driver could not stand to wait for a meagre 30 seconds before overtaking, and would rather endager Magnatom?



> *membrane*
> The road at that point is plenty wide enough for a car to safely pass a cyclist who cycles to the left whilst maintaining a reasonable distance the curb (<= 70cm).



Does this mean you only require space on your left! What happens if something caused you to suddenly need to move to the right? Or if you fell to the right? Whatever happened to cars passing cyclists as if they are other cars?


----------



## BentMikey (21 Oct 2007)

That post has pretty much proved to me your riding isn't to national standard quality, Membrane. OK, that's in my opinion based on Cyclecraft, but I think your riding must be quite lacking to have that sort of opinion.

I really don't get your comments in how Magnatom is "playing policeman". He's simply riding where he should be. His position doesn't prevent an overtake at all, it only deters an unsafe and dangerous one where there's no visibility. If Magnatom had been in secondary, the only result would have been a closer and earlier overtake, which would likely have been much more dangerous still. At least here he left himself some space to duck left and get out of the way if he needed it.


----------



## magnatom (21 Oct 2007)

Membrane,

I am not responsible for anyone else's actions but I certainly can suffer as a result of them. I have a duty to ensure my own safety. To ensure that safety I ride with the aim of keeping anything that can cause me harm at a safe distance. Therefore, I need to claim an area of road, not as my own, but as my safety zone. The size of this safety zone depends on a number of factors, road type, my speed, traffic speed, available light, weather etc. 

For example in very slow moving traffic, where I am moving slowly and visibility is good and there are no areas where possible conflict can occur then my safety zone can be fairly small. Cars can be close to me without any danger to me or them. However, when approaching a blind hill, where you cannot see the road ahead,and so cannot be sure of what is over the other side of the hill, and where I know that cars can and do attempt dangerous maneuvers at a fair speed, my safety zone increases in size. 

In the section of road in this video I need a large safety zone, which I need to defend. To defend my space I make space on the left of me (I suppose this is my escape zone). Taking the primary position provides me with this escape zone. It also (more often than not) provides a safety zone behind me, as following cars can see me easily, see that I am taking up the space of a car and thus should treat me with the same respect as a car, i.e. leave me room and only overtake when it is safe to do so.
If as I pass over the hill, a car decides to overtake (which I reduce the risk of by assuming the primary position) and it enters my safety zone to my right I have the option of moving into my escape zone. This would be vital in the situation where if he overtook and another car came over the hill overtaking. He would swerve toward me and I would have an escape route, that hopefully I could take.


Your notion of me provoking his behavour by my road position is preposterous! Imagine this chap was sitting his driving test. What would he do to pass. He would approach behind, hold back a safe distance, wait for me to pass over the hill. I would pass the other cyclist, pull into the secondary. He would then pass me when the road ahead was clear and who knows I might even give him a cheery wave to say thank you for driving well (I actually do this when it is appropriate). Chap passes his test and everyone is happy.

He would fail instantly if he came up behind me aggressively, hit his horn to get me to move out of his way, then waited until another vehicle was coming towards me and then endanger the lives of me, his passengers and the people in the bus on the other side. 

If I cycled in the gutter, the learner, to pass his test would have to take the same road position to pass me safely, over the brow of the hill (gutter cyclists are more likely to swerve unexpectedly for instance). So to pass his test in this case he would do exactly what he did in my first example and hold back until he had passed the hill.

Of course once people have passed their test they often don't take the same safety precautions that they were taught to take. So as a vulnerable road user (although not with the correct precautions) I cannot assume that if I cycled in the gutter that the driver would give me enough if any room. If he did not, I would have no escape zone (see wall to my left) and so if anything went wrong I would be at significant risk.

So you see I had good reason for doing what I did. If he had reacted in the way he was originally trained, no conflict would occur and he would have been held up for a very short amount of time. 

If anyone here is a cycling standards officer I would love your input on my cycling in this video, and I would also welcome any driving instructors to confirm or refute my assumptions about the drivers passability.

What do you think membrane?


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

Personally,i wouldnt overtake if there is a car coming up behind me,or there was not enough time to pass safely,and due to your position,from the drivers angle,it may have looked like you were two abreast too,either way,i would wait untill im not going to cause another vehicle to slow down,before passing the cyclist.


----------



## Membrane (21 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> What do you think membrane?



I think you completely ignored the points I made, this indicates that you have closed your mind to examining your behaviour. Given that, further discussion serves no purpose.


----------



## magnatom (21 Oct 2007)

Membrane said:


> I think you completely ignored the points I made, this indicates that you have closed your mind to examining your behaviour. Given that, further discussion serves no purpose.



Provide me with some succinct points or questions and I will be happy to answer them. Whilst your at it you could always comment on what I said in my previous point.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Personally,i wouldnt overtake if there is a car coming up behind me,or there was not enough time to pass safely,and due to your position,from the drivers angle,it may have looked like you were two abreast too,either way,i would wait untill im not going to cause another vehicle to slow down,before passing the cyclist.



Let's replace all of the vehicles with cars. The third car in line, in this case the muppet driver, would have to wait whilst Magnatom in the second car overtook the first. If you're already out there, the drivers/riders behind need to wait for a safe time to overtake. Anything else is simply impatience and bad overtaking.


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Let's replace all of the vehicles with cars. The third car in line, in this case the muppet driver, would have to wait whilst Magnatom in the second car overtook the first. If you're already out there, the drivers/riders behind need to wait for a safe time to overtake. Anything else is simply impatience and bad overtaking.





But the fact is we are not cars,so your point is?


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Hard to do when dead.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I dont think getting killed was one of the mistakes meant,but i see his point,all this about primary being my right,yes ,but only if its safe and not obstructing others,for no other reason than its my right to be there.


----------



## gambatte (21 Oct 2007)

Membrane said:


> The road at that point is plenty wide enough for a car to safely pass a cyclist who cycles to the left whilst maintaining a *reasonable* distance the curb (<= 70cm). That give us enough room to deal with the occasional driver who overtakes us too closely for it to be actually dangerous (not just annoying).



Less than or equal to 700mm?

Now I'm a recent beginner to cycle commuting, but I'm sure the recent advise from the CTC was that you should never ride closer to the kerb than 750mm?

Infact they tried to get it written into the highway code.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...than+kerb&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk&lr=lang_en


look down the left hand side, till you get to 'Rule 58'

so your advice puts his maximum position 50mm inside the CTCs minimum distance


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (21 Oct 2007)

This does worry me, SA, Membrane and Col have all stated that primary _in this situation_ is an inconsiderate road position, and was assumed only because a cyclist has as much right to use the road as any other vehicle.

I don't mind admitting that I am utterly failling to see:

a) *How *secondary is the safer road position to cross that bridge. How can riding in a secondary position, which encourages and facilitates overtaking, be safe on a blind rise with oncoming traffic!!

 *Why *people are more worried about holding a car up for *30 seconds* than the danger of crossing a blind rise, with oncoming traffic in a road position that encourages cars to pass.

c) When is it appropriate to assume a primary position? If it is not to try and manage personal saftey by discouraging cars from overtaking at hazardous points, when is it appropriate?


It seems to me almost that there is a suggestion that Primary and Secondary positions be reversed so that newPrimary (as the position that most time should be spent in) becomes near the gutter, and newSecondary becomes the position used when? To block cars from overtaking... but surely that is just being obstinate and taking up such a position purely because the cyclist is allowed to!?!? So the cyclist should stay in the newPrimary all the time, to avoid this situation???

Ok... now I'm confusing myself, but hopefull I've made some sense.


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

Your over analysing the answer i feel.Primary is a good position in the right and safe circumstances,but useing it when there are no obstructions,and the road is wide enough ,just because its my right,well just seems ignorant to other road users to me.And where Mag stays out after he passed the cyclist,probably provoked the reaction,the driver may have wondered why he was there after passing,instead of moving back to secondary.Like i said,used as and when needed,and not just because i have the right,is the way to go,that way,there would be less confrontation between drivers and ourselves.imo


----------



## BentMikey (21 Oct 2007)

col said:


> I dont think getting killed was one of the mistakes meant,but i see his point,all this about primary being my right,yes ,but only if its safe and not obstructing others,for no other reason than its my right to be there.



IMO this shows that you have a basic misunderstanding about primary. Primary is about "obstructing" others, or rather about owning a safe space on the road when it's required for your own safety. It puts you in the most visible bit of the road where motorist tunnel vision is concentrated, and helps to dissuade stupid overtaking maneuvers such as this one, left hooks, etc.

Of course it's not really obstructing, because safe overtakes are not prevented, and you don't have any automatic right to overtake the car/bicycle in front as they have priority over you.



col said:


> And where Mag stays out after he passed the cyclist,probably provoked the reaction




This bit is obvious - see the oncoming traffic vs the car-width of Magnatom's lane? There's no way the driver can overtake safely there with the oncoming traffic. No wonder magnatom stays in lane. There's no point in the car driver overtaking anyway, there's a queue up ahead. Overtaking here is both pointless and stupid. It shows no planning ahead from the driver.

You guys seriously need to look at the way you ride if this is really what you think.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> Less than or equal to 700mm?
> 
> Now I'm a recent beginner to cycle commuting, but I'm sure the recent advise from the CTC was that you should never ride closer to the kerb than 750mm?
> 
> ...



Yes, Membrane would seem to be riding far too submissively for good safety. Along the same lines, what's a cycle lane recommended width? 2 metres is the right answer.


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> IMO this shows that you have a basic misunderstanding about primary. Primary is about "obstructing" others, or rather about owning a safe space on the road when it's required for your own safety. It puts you in the most visible bit of the road where motorist tunnel vision is concentrated, and helps to dissuade stupid overtaking maneuvers such as this one, left hooks, etc.
> 
> Of course it's not really obstructing, because safe overtakes are not prevented, and you don't have any automatic right to overtake the car/bicycle in front as they have priority over you.
> 
> ...





I do understand the obstruction for safety bit,but what im saying is, why when there is no need?iv never been honked or shouted at yet,and i dont cycle in the gutter either,It comes down to being aware of whats around you,and acting accordingly.If traffic was coming up behind me,i wouldnt dream of overtaking,and then claiming priority over the rise,whats the point? where does it get me?I agree with primary,i just have a different view on when it should be used it seems.


----------



## domtyler (21 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> This does worry me, *SA, Membrane and Col *have all stated that primary _in this situation_ is an inconsiderate road position, and was assumed only because a cyclist has as much right to use the road as any other vehicle.



The thing that is worrying me most is why you lot are wasting your time bickering with these three bumbling fuckwits.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (21 Oct 2007)

> *col*
> <snip>
> I agree with primary,i just have a different view on when it should be used it seems
> </snip>



Yep, it seems that you do! 

I don't understand your decision / opting to take secondary for the bridge, but you are free to chose a position (even if I think you're barmy!!  )

I have had a thought col, since you are debating very reasonably, what kind of speed do you generally ride at? The reason I ask is that I have noticed a trend that seems to show the slower the cyclist, the closer to the curb they ride.

I know that I ride slightly closer to secondary when on Sir Walter, my knockabout, on which I cruise at around 25-30km/h. On my roadbike I hold a much more dominant primary cruising around 35-40km/h


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Yep, it seems that you do!
> 
> I don't understand your decision / opting to take secondary for the bridge, but you are free to chose a position (even if I think you're barmy!!  )
> 
> ...




Normally between 15 and 20 mph,i prefer to have my comp set at these,dunno why,just used to it i suppose,iv never been able to get used to kph.
My reasoning on the position ,wasnt to take secondary,but not to overtake if traffic is coming up behind,or if i had overtook,to move back in again,if it was safe to.I wasnt saying primary shouldnt be took.


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

domtyler said:


> The thing that is worrying me most is why you lot are wasting your time bickering with these three bumbling fuckwits.




So i take it you dissagree totally?


----------



## domtyler (21 Oct 2007)

col said:


> So i take it you disagree totally?



Aargh, you sussed me! I thought I was being really subtle!!


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

domtyler said:


> Aargh, you sussed me! I thought I was being really subtle!!



It wasnt easy,but i read between the lines


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (21 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Normally between 15 and 20 mph,i prefer to have my comp set at these,dunno why,just used to it i suppose,iv never been able to get used to kph.
> My reasoning on the position ,wasnt to take secondary,but not to overtake if traffic is coming up behind,or if i had overtook,to move back in again,if it was safe to.*I wasnt saying primary shouldnt be took*.



Ohhhhhhhhhh I did not get that.

But surely overtaking the other cyclist, put Magnatom in the correct position for crossing the bridge!!


----------



## col (21 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Ohhhhhhhhhh I did not get that.
> 
> But surely overtaking the other cyclist, put Magnatom in the correct position for crossing the bridge!!



Yes but once passed the bridge and cyclist, he stayed out didnt he? even after glancing back to see there was a car coming.It was that that got the honk i think.


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Yes but once passed the bridge and cyclist, he stayed out didnt he? even after glancing back to see there was a car coming.It was that that got the honk i think.



I did stay out (although not enough). Look at the video again. Can you see the dirty great bus coming the other way? Is it safe to overtake if it would take you into direct conflict with another road user?

Remember, if I am cycling in the secondary road position, he should still give me AT LEAST 1m room as he overtakes. On this road that would require that he crosses the central line, even if I was in the secondary position bringing him way to close to the oncoming traffic. (Look at where the bus is as it passes). Therefore, to prevent the maneuver I should take the primary position until it is safe for me to do otherwise. My only mistake here was I was not out far enough!


Oh and the honk happened as I was overtaking the other cyclist, just after the hill. Should I have been closer to the other cyclist? Should I not give him room?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Yes but once passed the bridge and cyclist, he stayed out didnt he? even after glancing back to see there was a car coming.It was that that got the honk i think.



FWIW (not much probably), I finally had a look at the video last night. Am afraid to say I agree with Col. I think you got honked for being in the middle of the road after the bridge and after the other cyclist.

The driver's overtake was probably a little bit close but it's not something that I personally would have pursued. I can only conclude that my riding is not up to national standard 

But I do contest that you got shouted at "for no good reason"!

ps I know it's been covered, but I was ending myself at "ever heard of the primary position?"


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (22 Oct 2007)

> *Magnatom*
> Oh and the honk happened as I was overtaking the other cyclist, just after the hill. Should I have been closer to the other cyclist? Should I not give him room?



That has just raised a thought - a normal driver wouldn't have beeped you there, as you gave the cyclist the same room as they would give you... Mr Muppet beeped as he thought it totally unreasonable that you didn't skim the other cyclist with your elbow.


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> FWIW (not much probably), I finally had a look at the video last night. Am afraid to say I agree with Col. I think you got honked for being in the middle of the road after the bridge and after the other cyclist.
> 
> The driver's overtake was probably a little bit close but it's not something that I personally would have pursued. I can only conclude that my riding is not up to national standard
> 
> ...




Are you watching a different video from the one I posted??! At the time the car behind honks I am OVERTAKING another cyclist. He is still slightly in front of me. Watch the video!!!! Prey tell Tete, what road position should I take when I am overtaking another cyclist.

Oh and I am happy to hear I amused you. B)


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> That has just raised a thought - a normal driver wouldn't have beeped you there, as you gave the cyclist the same room as they would give you... Mr Muppet beeped as he thought it totally unreasonable that you didn't skim the other cyclist with your elbow.



Everyone seems to be seeing what they want to see. If they would just look at the video they would see that I get honked just before I pass the cyclist. Yet if you read what the others are writing, I had already passed the cyclist. It doesn't matter that it is on video and that the facts are right in front of them!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Are you watching a different video from the one I posted??! At the time the car behind honks I am OVERTAKING another cyclist. He is still slightly in front of me. Watch the video!!!! Prey tell Tete, what road position should I take when I am overtaking another cyclist.
> 
> Oh and I am happy to hear I amused you.



OK I'll have another look at it tonight.

Overtaking another cyclist requires the primary position.


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Everyone seems to be seeing what they want to see. If they would just look at the video they would see that I get honked just before I pass the cyclist. Yet if you read what the others are writing, I had already passed the cyclist. It doesn't matter that it is on video and that the facts are right in front of them!




Thats my point,i wouldnt have overtook while a vehicle is coming up behind.


----------



## domtyler (22 Oct 2007)

I find that a good bit of weaving around, i.e. to avoid man hole covers etc. when there is an peanut up your arse usually is enough to get them to think again. Failing that a quick squirt of gloss paint onto their windscreen will do the trick.


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Thats my point,i wouldnt have overtook while a vehicle is coming up behind.




But he only started causing a problem after I had initiated my overtake maneuver. I had started to overtake when he hit his horn. What should I have done? Hit the brakes and swerve to the left? That would be very unpredictable cycling and would put me at more risk than if I had carried on.

If I was to never overtake another cyclist when a car was behind I would hardly ever be able to overtake. You are trying to pin blame on me, when the driver was completely at fault. Your logic here (or lack of it) really puzzles me Col.


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

domtyler said:


> I find that a good bit of weaving around, i.e. to avoid man hole covers etc. when there is an peanut up your arse usually is enough to get them to think again. Failing that a quick squirt of gloss paint onto their windscreen will do the trick.



...and you always have gloss paint at the ready to squirt?


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> But he only started causing a problem after I had initiated my overtake maneuver. I had started to overtake when he hit his horn. What should I have done? Hit the brakes and swerve to the left? That would be very unpredictable cycling and would put me at more risk than if I had carried on.
> 
> If I was to never overtake another cyclist when a car was behind I would hardly ever be able to overtake. You are trying to pin blame on me, when the driver was completely at fault. Your logic here (or lack of it) really puzzles me Col.




Im only saying i wouldnt have chose to overtake at that time,i didnt realise ,well i should have really,that a debate so detailed and diverse would have happened


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Im only saying i wouldnt have chose to overtake at that time,i didnt realise ,well i should have really,that a debate so detailed and diverse would have happened



I've posted some controversial videos in the past, but I really didn't think this one would be. I got hassled from behind, and passed way to close, all when I was taking a defensive and appropriate road position. Hey ho. Maybe I should stop posting my videos................... 

It's a shame Steve Austin hasn't got back with some points and questions, I was quite looking forward to answering them.


----------



## domtyler (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> It's a shame Steve Austin hasn't got back with some points and questions, I was quite looking forward to answering them.



Careful of this guy, if he doesn't like your posts he will delete them for you like he has done with mine in the past. !


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> I've posted some controversial videos in the past, but I really didn't think this one would be. I got hassled from behind, and passed way to close, all when I was taking a defensive and appropriate road position. Hey ho. Maybe I should stop posting my videos...................
> 
> It's a shame Steve Austin hasn't got back with some points and questions, I was quite looking forward to answering them.




No its not controversial,but i think because you complained about the driver honking then passing as he did,sparked some comments,especially ,as it seems ,you started to overtake as this driver wasnt far behind.That was my comment on the vid,not really controversial stuff,but the reaction and detailed description of primary,and how i am possibly illogical in not choosing to overtake here is surprising.
And i am positive you wont stop posting vids too,it gets a good debate going,and im not suggesting at all,that you might pick the ones you post,for just that reaction


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> > *Jacomus*
> > That has just raised a thought - a normal driver wouldn't have beeped you there, as you gave the cyclist the same room as they would give you... Mr Muppet beeped as he thought it totally unreasonable that you didn't skim the other cyclist with your elbow.
> 
> 
> Everyone seems to be seeing what they want to see. If they would just look at the video they would see that I get honked just before I pass the cyclist. Yet if you read what the others are writing, I had already passed the cyclist. It doesn't matter that it is on video and that the facts are right in front of them!



Yep. The driver was a muppet and a danger. The only fault in your handling of the situation was not blocking his dangerous pass right infront of the bus... OR not firing your standard issue, handlebar mounted rocket launcher. 

It is very hard to stay "in the way" when a driver agressively beeps you, so you shouldn't feel bad about not being far enough over. 



> *col*
> Thats my point,i wouldnt have overtook while a vehicle is coming up behind



The gutter cyclist should not factor into this. The riding position that is IMO the correct one to chose for the bridge would be a very strong primary position, holding it until the danger of the bus in the opposing lane had passed.

The road position of the gutter cycist is such that they would have been overtaken _anyway_ by Magnatom when he assumed a strong primary to tackle the bridge. Waiting behind the gutter cyclist in the same position would have had the same effect on the moron in the car.

//////////////////////////

*Anaylising road position in video*

Analysing Magnatom's road position in the video, times in mm:ss, followed by situation and _observed hazards_

*00:13* Approaching blind rise _Risk of vehicles overtaking on a blind bridge._
*00:20* Bridge ends. Approaching parked cars. _Approaching risk of door zone_
*00:21* Next to red Astra Van. _Risk of door zone_
*00.22* Empty space in layby, cyclist in gutter. _Approaching risk of door zone_
*00:23* Next to white van. Beeped *Risk of door zone*
*00:26* Turning on LHS. _Risk of left hook and vehicles pulling out_
*00:29* Narrow road, cars parked on opposite side. _Approaching bus, vehicles swerving into Magnatom's lane from opposing lane._
*00:30* Mr Muppet overtakes. _ONCOMING BUS_
*00:32* *NO VEHICLES BEHIND BUS FOR 5 SECONDS*

How would moving into secondary be safe along that stretch? At what point in the above time progression would it be safe to move into secondary in order to let Mr Muppet through?


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Yep. The driver was a muppet and a danger. The only fault in your handling of the situation was not blocking his dangerous pass right infront of the bus... OR not firing your standard issue, handlebar mounted rocket launcher.
> 
> It is very hard to stay "in the way" when a driver agressively beeps you, so you shouldn't feel bad about not being far enough over.
> 
> ...





The dark winter nights must fly by


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

Yeah but it's all about perceived risk isn't it? It's not a black and white thing. I mean, it's likely that the charmingly named "gutter cyclist" made his way along that same route and didn't feel endangered and didn't get any beeps, isn't it?

I think it probably is safer to ride how Magnatom rode. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a beep from a car driver whilst riding in this way though.

Mag don't stop posting vids, is generating discussion not your aim? This one's done that.


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Yeah but it's all about perceived risk isn't it? It's not a black and white thing. I mean, it's likely that the charmingly named "gutter cyclist" made his way along that same route and didn't feel endangered and didn't get any beeps, isn't it?
> 
> I think it probably is safer to ride how Magnatom rode. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a beep from a car driver whilst riding in this way though.
> 
> Mag don't stop posting vids, is generating discussion not your aim? This one's done that.



Don't worry. It would take a technical failure, a serious injury or a significant lottery win for me to stop posting videos (if I won the lottery it would be way, way below me to be posting videos for the proles to gawp at....


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> Don't worry. It would take a technical failure, a serious injury or a significant lottery win for me to stop posting videos (if I won the lottery it would be way, way below me to be posting videos for the proles to gawp at....



You could have a film crew for all that stuff. Following you in the white Magnavan.


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> You could have a film crew for all that stuff. Following you in the white Magnavan.




Yeah,and vids of the reaction of the people held up by the magna van would make great debate


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> You could have a film crew for all that stuff. Following you in the white Magnavan.



I'd be too worried at getting into conflict with the Magna van myself!!


----------



## gambatte (22 Oct 2007)

The magna van, undergoing predelivery trials

http://www.shaftagents.com/ateamaction.jpg


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

* I'm not perfect, I'm not an angel, but I try to live a certain way because it brings honour and respect to my mother. I tell people that when they look at me, they're looking at nothing but a big, overgrown, tough mama's boy. That's who I am.*


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> * I'm not perfect, I'm not an angel, but I try to live a certain way because it brings honour and respect to my mother. I tell people that when they look at me, they're looking at nothing but a big, overgrown, tough mama's boy. That's who I am.*



Ya big jessie


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Ya big jessie



*Who you calling a jessie FOOL!*


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

Settle down BA,its only a two hour flight


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

col said:


> Settle down BA,its only a two hour flight



This is going way off topic......*I ain't gettin on no damn plane....*


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

Your right.......*But face has a plan*


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

In 1972, a crack cycle commuter was sent to prison by a Ford Granada driver for crime he didn't commit. This man promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Glasgow underground. Today, still wanted by the government, he survives as a movie maker of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can film it, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire... The Magna Team.

Starring:

Magnatom as Hannibal "I love it when an edit comes together" Smith
Cab as BA "Look at the Highway Code, Fool!" Baracas
Jacomus as Howling Mad Murdoch
And Domtyler as The Face Man


----------



## magnatom (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> In 1972, a crack cycle commuter was sent to prison by a Ford Granada driver for crime he didn't commit. This man promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Glasgow underground. Today, still wanted by the government, he survives as a movie maker of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can film it, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire... The Magna Team.
> 
> Starring:
> 
> ...



 I like your casting  Although are you sure Bonj wouldn't make a better Murdoch?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

magnatom said:


> I like your casting  Although are you sure Bonj wouldn't make a better Murdoch?



He's fully committed to other projects - half his time presenting The Revised Natural World, the other half guesting as mediator on The Jeremy Kyle Show.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (22 Oct 2007)

*Damn right, I'm the best damn pilot there is*


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2007)

col said:


> The dark winter nights must fly by



And you avoided saying why his points and risk assessments are wrong. If you can't say why, then it shows why your opinion here is also incorrect.


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> And you avoided saying why his points and risk assessments are wrong. If you can't say why, then it shows why your opinion here is also incorrect.



It was meant in a jovial way,hence the icon,i got it from a blackadder programme
My opinion of not overtaking when a vehicle is coming up behind?My choice surely?whatever detail is shown.

Just had another look,and from the drivers perspective,it looked like the pass was started,just as the van was being approached,now you mention door zone,where would the gutter cyclist have gone if the van door swung open,with another cyclist passing?another reason why i wouldnt have overtook at this point.never mind that there was a car approaching from behind?


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2007)

That's OK, you can cop out if you want to mate.


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> That's OK, you can cop out if you want to mate.




No cop out,read above,i edited to look again.Just curious,but is there a problem with me choosing not to overtake in this situation on the vid?


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

You can cop out if you like mike


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2007)

Why would a car approaching from behind cause you not to overtake?


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Why would a car approaching from behind cause you not to overtake?



I dont know,would you like to answer that for me?

Because im not keen on pulling in front of vehicles coming up behind me,if i dont have to.It tends to get a bad reaction,or me injuries.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2007)

*shakes head and walks away*.


----------



## col (22 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> *shakes head and walks away*.




I would like to know why you react this way,its not a bad thing to do is it?


----------



## Cab (22 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Why would a car approaching from behind cause you not to overtake?



If you're in the primary position to begin with, or at least a defensible secondary position, it wouldn't. If you're in the gutter and effectively part of a tiny fake cycle lane then things are different of course.


----------



## gambatte (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> In 1972, a crack cycle commuter was sent to prison by a Ford Granada driver for crime he didn't commit. This man promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Glasgow underground. Today, still wanted by the government, he survives as a movie maker of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can film it, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire... The Magna Team.
> 
> Starring:
> 
> ...



I figured if I linked to that picture, somthing like this would happen.



I love it when a plan comes together!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

gambatte said:


> I figured if I linked to that picture, somthing like this would happen.
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when a plan comes together!



 I'm happy to be your pawn.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> FWIW (not much probably), I finally had a look at the video last night. Am afraid to say I agree with Col. I think you got honked for being in the middle of the road after the bridge and after the other cyclist.
> 
> The driver's overtake was probably a little bit close but it's not something that I personally would have pursued. I can only conclude that my riding is not up to national standard B)
> 
> ...



OK I've had another look and... I've changed my mind. Col you're wrong, Magnatom being a cyclist of national standard was fine in what he did and the driver was indeed an peanut for beeping (as Magna was overtaking Gutterball) and then swiping him. Which he did. 

I take it all back.  

Except for the beep - he had good reason.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (22 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> And *you avoided saying why his points and risk assessments are wrong. * If you can't say why, then it shows why your opinion here is also incorrect.



 Why are they wrong? 

That would basically be the risk assesment running through my head if I were riding it! What have I missed!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (22 Oct 2007)

No Mikey was trying to get Col to back up his (Col's) viewpoint. Mikey is on your side you crazy fool.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> No Mikey was trying to get Col to back up his (Col's) viewpoint. Mikey is on your side you crazy fool.





Is it too late to have you guys break me into the VA?*







__________
* http://www.geocities.com/trueonyx/


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> No Mikey was trying to get Col to back up his (Col's) viewpoint. Mikey is on your side you crazy fool.



Exactly. Now "Quit yo jibba jabba!!!"


----------



## Tetedelacourse (23 Oct 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Is it too late to have you guys break me into the VA?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




BOSCO BARACAS?! I always wondered


----------



## Cab (23 Oct 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Mikey is on your side you crazy fool.



I think you'll find that the casting director says 'you crazy fool' is my line.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (23 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> I think you'll find that the casting director says 'you crazy fool' is my line.



Sorry Bosco


----------



## col (23 Oct 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Exactly. Now "Quit yo jibba jabba!!!"




I somehow thought i might be wrong,in deciding i wouldnt overtake here
Even looking at it a few times,i still dont think i would.


----------



## Terminator (23 Oct 2007)

Easier to take your time.Especially when it comes to well any sort of vehicle really.

Depends on your positioning I guess.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2007)

Coming back to this after having passed the cycling instructor course, it seems that Membrane and others are most likely wrong. Magnatom did everything right here.


----------



## magnatom (7 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Coming back to this after having passed the cycling instructor course, it seems that Membrane and others are most likely wrong. Magnatom did everything right here.



Thank goodness for that . How did the course go? Did it change your mind about anything or did it confirm most of what you thought?

I might need to pick your brains soon. I had a chat with someone from Stagecoach today and they are looking for training material for their drivers (some video examples i.e. mine and advice etc). I have some material already but suggestions would be welcome!


----------

