# Was this bus driver bad?



## nethalus (12 Dec 2007)

There was a bus driver pulling away from a bus stop that has a short bus and cycle lane. As the bus was pulling away from the stop a cyclist was about to try and overtake the bus, they had just got level with the rear of it. The cyclist shouted "Oi thanks mate" as the bus continued to move. So the bus driver opened the cab window and stuck twos up at the cyclist before accelerating away. Do you think this was bad of the bus driver?


----------



## LOGAN 5 (12 Dec 2007)

this would be totally normal behaviour from a bus driver in London......


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (12 Dec 2007)

Hmm, giving them the finger, they should have stayed in their zen bubble (that is presuming bus drivers can have zen bubbles!!) But so should the cyclist.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other I say


----------



## nethalus (12 Dec 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Hmm, giving them the finger, they should have stayed in their zen bubble (that is presuming bus drivers can have zen bubbles!!) But so should the cyclist.
> 
> Six of one, half a dozen of the other I say



What's a Zen bubble??


----------



## fossyant (12 Dec 2007)

Not enough info there mate, and to be honest if the driver was signaling, then then cyclist should have let the bus go....unless he/she was already well passed the rear end....

But it's probably a student infested area, and lets not go there.. cos the law doesn't count...

Hence why I cycle to my works base, then catch the dreaded bus into town - leave the official cycle routes to those that are stupid !


----------



## nethalus (12 Dec 2007)

fossyant said:


> Not enough info there mate, and to be honest if the driver was signaling, then then cyclist should have let the bus go....unless he/she was already well passed the rear end....
> 
> But it's probably a student infested area, and lets not go there.. cos the law doesn't count...
> 
> Hence why I cycle to my works base, then catch the dreaded bus into town - leave the official cycle routes to those that are stupid !


Alright, it's a short bus and cycle lane in Meanwood Road, Leeds that's just after a set of traffic lights. Now before the traffic lights there are two lanes. The only traffic allowed in the left hand lane before the lights are left turners, buses and cycles (who are both allowed to go straight on in the left hand lane, as it goes into the bus lane.) The bus had dropped one person off at the stop just after the lights, was late and the driver was a bit p*ssed off. They'd indicated, checked mirrors started to pull away when this cyclist appeared. They shouted "Oi!!!" so the bus driver gave them a classic two finger reply!


----------



## gbb (12 Dec 2007)

It depends if the driver had signalled his intention early enough. IF he did, and IF the cyclist chose to ignore it...cyclists at fault.

If the driver simply pulled out without signalling...drivers at fault.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (12 Dec 2007)

A "Zen bubble" is a state jovially referred to often by cyclists. Its that calm, happy, zen-like feeling you get quite often where things that happen around you just happen, and don;t emotionally affect you, and no matter what idiots cut you up and pull out on you, you still arrive where you are going happy as if you have just been for a Sunday morning jaunt in the country.


----------



## smallfish (13 Dec 2007)

I'm with J-r-G

Sometimes you just gotta chill - look up the inside of the bus as you approach and if there's no waiting passengers you know the bus is going to pull out soon so slow down and let the bus pull out. 

If it's in front of you it can't kill you - that's the mantra i try and keep to - easier said than done sometimes, but always true!


----------



## gambatte (13 Dec 2007)

Netty - Is the road flat? (Just wondering as to slow down to allow the bus out may have had more affect on the cyclist if it was uphill)

Think its good to remember we're commuting, not racing. Its an attitutude we keep saying we'd like all car drivers to adopt.

As to the specific situation. I don't know enough detail to give an overall opinion.


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> There was a bus driver pulling away from a bus stop that has a short bus and cycle lane. As the bus was pulling away from the stop a cyclist was about to try and overtake the bus, they had just got level with the rear of it. The cyclist shouted "Oi thanks mate" as the bus continued to move. So the bus driver opened the cab window and stuck twos up at the cyclist before accelerating away. Do you think this was bad of the bus driver?



As others have said, there isn't really enough info to know one way or another. I always let an indicating bus out, so long as it's safe to (i.e. I'm not being tailgated by a car, have seen the indication before passing the rear of the bus and can stop in a controlled way).

Not everyone realises that a bike going 20+ mph does need more than a few yards to come to a stop though!


----------



## BentMikey (13 Dec 2007)

Sounds like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. The bus driver for pulling a sign, and the cyclist for trying to overtake when it seems likely he shouldn't have from Nethalus' description of him only making it level with the rear of the bus.

Of course it's possible the real situation might have been quite different from the point of view of an independent observer.


----------



## nethalus (13 Dec 2007)

gbb said:


> It depends if the driver had signalled his intention early enough. IF he did, and IF the cyclist chose to ignore it...cyclists at fault.
> 
> If the driver simply pulled out without signalling...drivers at fault.



The bus driver was signalling before pulling off, but the cyclist kept comming anway.


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> The bus driver was signalling before pulling off, but the cyclist kept comming anway.



Highway code rule 167?

*167*

*DO NOT* overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
(Other examples removed for clarity) Note that it's a "Do Not" not a must not, which I think means it's not an illegal manouevre.

Also;
*223*

Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.


Again, the cyclist may not have felt able to stop safely in the time from seeing the indication from the bus. (Happened to me last week in the rain - I had to do a less controlled stop than I'd have liked because the bus moved out into the main part of the carriageway - wouldn't have been a problem in the dry).


----------



## frog (13 Dec 2007)

I'd let the bus go. I'd rather have him ahead of me disappearing into the distance than have him up my arse, trying to get past, until the next bus stop.


----------



## Arch (13 Dec 2007)

I'd let the bus go, (subject to the usual stuff about him indicating, me seeing that well in advance, and still being well behind him), but if I was passing a bus and it started/continued to pull out, I suspect I'd shout something like "oi!", simply out of fear and self preservation, and be a bit miffed to receive the two fingers. But mostly, I approach buses with the assumption that they are going to pull out, and have the brakes covered, so it's generally no problem to let them out...


----------



## gambatte (13 Dec 2007)

I reckon I'd have let the bus go.

But: technical point, considering Johns quote from the highway code. Was the cyclist actually carrying out an 'overtake'?

was the bus stop itself part of the carriageway or a 'layby' type stop.


----------



## magnatom (13 Dec 2007)

Nothing much more to add. As the others have said the cyclist probably should let the bus out and the bus driver should be a little more patient as the cyclist may have had a reason for continuing to pass.

Way to much anger and aggression on the roads. 

Jacomus is right about the zen bubble. All we need is a force field bubble to go with it and the world would be perfect


----------



## HLaB (13 Dec 2007)

I tend to let the bus go aswell. Feel sorry for a bus drivers though, as I said I usually hold back to let them out but because good drivers pause/ look before pulling out, cars keep comming.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (13 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Nothing much more to add. As the others have said the cyclist probably should let the bus out and the bus driver should be a little more patient as the cyclist may have had a reason for continuing to pass.
> 
> Way to much anger and aggression on the roads.
> 
> Jacomus is right about the zen bubble. *All we need is a force field bubble to go with it and the world would be perfect*



Just imagine that! 

Car pulls out and sends you flying, bouncing off down the road in the force field, still on the bike.

"SMIDSY"
"No problem old bean, perfectly unharmed. You might want to see a mechanic about what the EMP has done to your electricals though"


----------



## magnatom (13 Dec 2007)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> Just imagine that!
> 
> Car pulls out and sends you flying, bouncing off down the road in the force field, still on the bike.
> 
> ...




The worry is that bouncing about inside the force field might be so much fun you would end up aim for the cars!


----------



## pompey (13 Dec 2007)

The worry is that bouncing about inside the force field might be so much fun you would dispense with the bike


----------



## magnatom (13 Dec 2007)

This has got me thinking. I wonder if you had 
*Warning! Force Field in use. Give this Cyclist Room!*

On the back of the bike, would it have more success? 

There are some numpties out there that might just fall for it....


----------



## magnatom (13 Dec 2007)

pompey said:


> The worry is that bouncing about inside the force field might be so much fun you would dispense with the bike



I think we have just invented a new form of transport


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Dec 2007)

Apropos of nothing in particular, I have to say that one of the things that really sh1ts me up on my commute is passing a bus that *then* puts it's indicator on (i.e. overtake a bus that isn't indicating to pull out, then as you pass the rear of the vehicle seeing the side mounted right turn light start to flash). I always have that moment where you wonder if they've seen you or not.

I also have to say that I'm often surprised by the number of motorists who don't allow buses out (quite often I'll stop, and 4 or 5 cars will go around before there's a gap for the bus).


----------



## Cab (13 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> The bus driver was signalling before pulling off, but the cyclist kept comming anway.



While it is good form to allow a bus out if it is indicating, it isn't mandatory to do so. i.e. if it isn't safe or appropriate to let the bus out then you don't have to. If I'm going at speed and see someone indicating to pull out then whether I back off and let them go depends very much on whether I have time to safely do so. If I can, I'll let a bus out.

If I don't have time or if for any other reason I have not chosen to slow down and allow the bus out, and it bus pulls out anyway, then the bus driver is 100% in the wrong. You don't drive assuming that others will get out of your way, you drive according to whats happening on the road, and to pull out in front of someone in such a way as to _make_ them slow down is dangerous, and utterly wrong.


----------



## Cab (13 Dec 2007)

John the Monkey said:


> Highway code rule 167?
> 
> *167*
> 
> ...



You're not overtaking if the other road user isn't moving. If the bus isn't moving, and isn't part of the traffic yet, then the emphasis is (presumably) on the person joining the traffic to do so safely.



> Also;
> *223*
> 
> Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.



An entirely sensible statement that I hope we'd all agree with. What I'd question here is whether, in the view of the cyclist, it would have been safe to let the bus out. Might have been icy, he might have been going at a fair pace; the truth of the matter is that its up to the individual road user to make that call, and if you're joining the traffic then you'd have to be extremely foolhardy to assume they'll make a decision in your favour. I'd go so far as to say thats incredibly dangerous.



> Again, the cyclist may not have felt able to stop safely in the time from seeing the indication from the bus. (Happened to me last week in the rain - I had to do a less controlled stop than I'd have liked because the bus moved out into the main part of the carriageway - wouldn't have been a problem in the dry).



Thats so often the problem. I've lost count of how many times I've had to pull an emergency stop because of people (not always bus drivers) believing that because they've indicated (even for a nanosecond) the manoevre they're about to make is 'safe'.


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You're not overtaking if the other road user isn't moving. If the bus isn't moving, and isn't part of the traffic yet, then the emphasis is (presumably) on the person joining the traffic to do so safely.



I'd guess that the rules on moving off (earlier in the current version of the code) apply in that case, (the emphasis is very much on the person moving into traffic to ensure it's safe, as I recall).



> I've lost count of how many times I've had to pull an emergency stop because of people (not always bus drivers) believing that because they've indicated (even for a nanosecond) the manoevre they're about to make is 'safe'.



It's a rarity with Manchester bus drivers (at least in my experience). Drivers of motorcars are far, far worse in the city in terms of awareness of what's around them.


----------



## Amanda P (13 Dec 2007)

Probably there was less than perfect driving/cycling from both people here.

But no bus driver should ever be rude or insulting to anyone - she (I'll assume she's a she for the moment for simplicity) also needs a zen bubble. For all she knew, the cyclist could have been her boss. Or the MD of the bus company. Or the chief constable of West Yorkshire...

That's a useful test to apply to any behaviour. Would I behave that way towards my boss/daughter/next door neighbour (or any combination of these relationships)? If the answer's no, you've probably done something wrong.


----------



## nethalus (13 Dec 2007)

Uncle Phil said:


> Probably there was less than perfect driving/cycling from both people here.
> 
> But no bus driver should ever be rude or insulting to anyone - she (I'll assume she's a she for the moment for simplicity) also needs a zen bubble. For all she knew, the cyclist could have been her boss. Or the MD of the bus company. Or the chief constable of West Yorkshire...
> 
> That's a useful test to apply to any behaviour. Would I behave that way towards my boss/daughter/next door neighbour (or any combination of these relationships)? If the answer's no, you've probably done something wrong.



No the cyclist was deffinately not an MD at the bus company. She looked like a student on a bike, yes both the cyclist and the bus driver were female!


----------



## magnatom (13 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> No the cyclist was deffinately not an MD at the bus company. She looked like a student on a bike, yes both the cyclist and the bus driver were female!



I'm going to have a wild stab a this...... you wouldn't be the bus driver would you nethalus?


----------



## nethalus (13 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> I'm going to have a wild stab a this...... you wouldn't be the bus driver would you nethalus?



Errm, err, well..........


----------



## magnatom (13 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Errm, err, well..........



Don't worry nethalus, the most important thing is that you give a damn. Sure you may have made a mistake, we all do , but at least you are trying to learn from it.

Anyway the way you have described it, it wasn't clear cut. Don't worry too much, and for your penance give a cheery wave to the next five cyclists you meet!


----------



## nethalus (13 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Don't worry nethalus, the most important thing is that you give a damn. Sure you may have made a mistake, we all do , but at least you are trying to learn from it.
> 
> Anyway the way you have described it, it wasn't clear cut. Don't worry too much, and for your penance give a cheery wave to the next five cyclists you meet!



Aye I shouldn't have stuck twos up at the cyclist, that was very naughty of me, but it did annoy me that they tried to overtake when I had already started to move. Not sure where the cyclist actually came from really. Either she jumped the red light, as all the cars had stopped at the lights and it was clear for me to go, or she came round the corner. Which ever, she wasn't there when I checked just before pulling out.


----------



## Amanda P (13 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> No the cyclist was deffinately not an MD at the bus company. She looked like a student on a bike, yes both the cyclist and the bus driver were female!



I had my suspicions about their identities....

The cyclist _could_ have been the MD's daughter/wife/girlfreind/mistress/masseuse/whatever (now I'm assuming the MD is male): "...and you'll never believe what one of your drivers did today..."

But you're _thinking_ about it. That can only be good!


----------



## BentMikey (13 Dec 2007)

And although it's wrong to pull a sign like that, it's really only a very little wrong.


----------



## HJ (13 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> The bus driver was signalling before pulling off, but the cyclist kept comming anway.



The cyclist should have made a show of letting the bus out, then drafted the bus...


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Dec 2007)

I'd have let the bus out.
Best time to avoid Busses in London is during and just after the school runs.
The transporting of Britains noisy mouthy untamed urban youth makes them very bad tempered indeed.

T x


----------



## nethalus (14 Dec 2007)

> So if you were working in a bank you'd give the same response to someone who came in with a complaint?
> 
> If not, why not? Because you know you wouldn't get away with it?


I've never worked or had any intetion of working in a bank so wouldn't know like. Like has been said in earlier replies, the young lady cyclist could have stayed behind me instead of trying to overtake. Especially as I was about to accelerate up to the 40 mph speed limit.


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> I've never worked or had any intetion of working in a bank so wouldn't know like. Like has been said in earlier replies, the young lady cyclist could have stayed behind me instead of trying to overtake. Especially as I was about to accelerate up to the 40 mph speed limit.



Thats got nothing whatsoever to do with Users point.

You were identifiable as an employee of a particular company, being paid to do a job, and you abused a member of the public by making a rude gesture. Its exacly the same as a shop worker coming out to the shop door and being rude to someone, or someone in a bank coming onto the counter and yelling abuse at the person in the middle of the queue who is acting impatient.

Why is it okay to be abusive to the public if you're a bus driver and not if, say, you're working in a bank?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Dec 2007)

Oh come on, you lot. Everyone has off days, especially when their job involves dealing with the Great British Public, and even more especially when the aforementioned GBP are in their cars or on their bikes. I rarely make gestures at other road users, but it's rare that a day goes by when I don't find myself muttering dire insults under my breath at people. And that includes cyclists, sometimes. And just occasionally, people do do something that merits a Harvey Smith out of the window at them.


----------



## Tynan (14 Dec 2007)

all sounds good to me, we're not robots and soulless greys

a bit of banter and give and take is fine, not enough two fingered salutes about any more, I'm a one finger man myself sadly

I find London buses excellent, I'll usually pass them if I have space to my right to move in to, so I leave them room to pull out, they've invariably seen me early and either wait or pull out gently, which is all good


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Oh come on, you lot. Everyone has off days, especially when their job involves dealing with the Great British Public, and even more especially when the aforementioned GBP are in their cars or on their bikes. I rarely make gestures at other road users, but it's rare that a day goes by when I don't find myself muttering dire insults under my breath at people. And that includes cyclists, sometimes. And just occasionally, people do do something that merits a Harvey Smith out of the window at them.



I've worked in retail, I've worked in an NHS pharmacy, I've worked in fast food... I've never, there or anywhere else, lost my temper and disgraced myself and my employer in that way while working.


----------



## Tynan (14 Dec 2007)

you're a bit of an example to us all cab aintcha


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> you're a bit of an example to us all cab aintcha



In that I don't lose it and abuse people while representing my employer, then yes. But thats also true of the vast majority of people I should think.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> I've worked in retail, I've worked in an NHS pharmacy, I've worked in fast food... I've never, there or anywhere else, lost my temper and disgraced myself and my employer in that way while working.



Well, that's excellent. Have a biscuit. But we're only talking about a mildly rude gesture towards someone who sounds to me to have attempted something a bit dodgy while on a bike here, not some kind of crazed psycho hillbilly chase through the streets culminating in a crazed axe attack. It hardly seems worth all the pompous and self righteous hot air that's being expended on it to me.
Anyway, I'm off to work. Have a good day everyone, and I'll try not to gesticulate at any idiots today.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Dec 2007)

Yeah come on guys, leave off Nethalus. It wasn't a very bad thing to do, and quite understandable IMO.


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

Even though i agree with what you say cab,the driving scene is a different kettle of fish,when it comes to tempers flaring,and the way some drivers nearly cause very dangerous situations.The most mild mannered amongst us would sometimes have a rant or have something to say at times,iv been in retail,and never had what goes on on the road.


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Well, that's excellent. Have a biscuit. But we're only talking about a mildly rude gesture towards someone who sounds to me to have attempted something a bit dodgy while on a bike here, not some kind of crazed psycho hillbilly chase through the streets culminating in a crazed axe attack. It hardly seems worth all the pompous and self righteous hot air that's being expended on it to me.
> Anyway, I'm off to work. Have a good day everyone, and I'll try not to gesticulate at any idiots today.



Its up to the person in the carriageway to decide whether or not to allow someone to pull out. It isn't up to the person pulling out to force the issue, to decide that because the person _should_ allow them out they _will_.

Nethalus doesn't know where the cyclist came from, but it sounds like theres a legal route by which the cyclist could have been there; to abuse the other road user for that is unacceptable behaviour from _any_ driver, least of all a _professional_.

Nethalus knows she's in the wrong, and she knows that in most lines of work she'd be harshly reprimanded or dismissed. 

I don't see why this is controversial.


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Even though i agree with what you say cab,the driving scene is a different kettle of fish,when it comes to tempers flaring,and the way some drivers nearly cause very dangerous situations.The most mild mannered amongst us would sometimes have a rant or have something to say at times,iv been in retail,and never had what goes on on the road.



Thats what makes someone a good or a bad professional driver though. If thats how you react in a company vehicle, on company time, then thats clearly the wrong line of work to be in.


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Thats what makes someone a good or a bad professional driver though. If thats how you react in a company vehicle, on company time, then thats clearly the wrong line of work to be in.





Ok


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

I think what Cab is forgetting is that busses now are driver operator and the driver, drives the bus, takes fares, deals with the public on their own in a near constant stream. Bus driving also carries some of the highest rates of stress and heart disease.

You don't get to let off steam with your workmates until you finish shift by which time, I would imagine(I have never driven a bus)a stress filled day would have left you somewhat numb.

T x


----------



## Tynan (14 Dec 2007)

erm, the bike could have come from a legal route, more likely didn't

did keep coming despite the bus indicating and starting to pull out

and did say something to the bus driver

don't forget those bits cab

and for heaven's sake, your opinion is one thing, presenting it as fact is quite another


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> I think what Cab is forgetting is that busses now are driver operator and the driver, drives the bus, takes fares, deals with the public on their own in a near constant stream. Bus driving also carries some of the highest rates of stress and heart disease.
> 
> You don't get to let off steam with your workmates until you finish shift by which time, I would imagine(I have never driven a bus)a stress filled day would have left you somewhat numb.
> 
> T x




Sometimes its fine,but lately things have been bad,maybe due to the urgency of people nearing christmas.My worse incident lately was,as i was travelling down a bus lane,a car just pulled straight in front of me from the lane next to me,i had to hit the breaks hard,and heard the screams of shock from the passengers.But i was glad they all started to go on about bad car drivers,and after i had said sorry to them,all i got was,you dont need to be,it wasnt your fault,we are just thankfull you were on the ball.Made my day.


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

> I think most of us would agree to doing the same. But that stays inward.
> 
> I raised the point with the bus driver because she is specifically asking who is in the wrong. And she is, when talking about her response. But she, and her mates on Bloodbus, seem to think that it is ok to claim to be a professional but still have this level of disrespect for the public.




You could be in a car,or on a bike,or walking,if your treat in a certain way,i think it could make you react,some more than others,it includes everyone,not just proffessional drivers.I remember watching the tour one year,and because of over excited people on the side of the road,they caused a cyclist to fall,his reaction? to try and kick the public who were near?As i said,anyone can react,if provoked enough.Because bus drivers have a bad rep,in a generalised way,its jumped on straight away,when something like this is brought up.
When a cyclist is treated/shouted at/cut up,i dont see the answers,you shouldnt be cycling if thats the way you react,coming through?Its more like,i would have done worse,or what about trying this .


----------



## Tynan (14 Dec 2007)

christ there's some pompous shoot on this thread


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> I think what Cab is forgetting is that busses now are driver operator and the driver, drives the bus, takes fares, deals with the public on their own in a near constant stream. Bus driving also carries some of the highest rates of stress and heart disease.



Try working in retail near to Christmas (something I've done in the past). Try working in a hospital. See what happens if you behave that way towards the public. 



> You don't get to let off steam with your workmates until you finish shift by which time, I would imagine(I have never driven a bus)a stress filled day would have left you somewhat numb.



Not a great deal different to a lot of other jobs then.

Really, most of us can go day, after day, after day on the roads or at work without outbursts like that. I should think that most of us have _never_ behaved like that towards a member of the public while working, and I would hope that most of us never would. Do that in a shop and theres a fighting chance you'll lose your job. Do it in a bank and odds are you're in serious trouble. Driving a bus is indeed a stressful job, but so are many others; that behaviour is quite clearly wrong and in many jobs you'd be out of work, _Nethalus_ even knows its wrong.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Dec 2007)

Crikey, I'm agreeing with Tynan this soon after the earlier topic? LOLOL, just kidding mate.


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

Bless you Nethalus and your Saxon War Taunt!

2 written warnings! No harm done 'eh? 

I've been teaching my 5 year-old daughter the basics of road sense by using a 'we're all fishes swimming in the sea' analogy.
The Busses(and 18 Wheelers)are the whales and needs lots of room to move, if you get too close it could hurt you without even knowing you're there.

Cheesy I know, but it fits.
We also have the scarey Great White Van, Motorpikes and many others.
Velos are the shrimps and disabled scooters are hermit crabs.

It's amazing what commuting on the A2 does to your head.......

T x


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> christ there's some pompous shoot on this thread



Not intentional,just feeling defensive


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> erm, the bike could have come from a legal route, more likely didn't



Really? Who says? More to the point, what of it? Its now appropriate to make as to pull out into the path of a vehicle that _might_ have broken the law? Ridiculous assertion, really.



> did keep coming despite the bus indicating and starting to pull out



Thats the choice of the person in the carriageway; do you know whether that cyclist decided to keep going because it did not seem safe to stop? Do you know whether there was a car right on his arse? Do you know whether conditions were slippery and he maybe decided it wasn't safe to stop there? Thats the reality of that kind of decision, and thats why its up to the person on the road to make that call, and _not_ the person pulling out. We have no clear evidence that the cyclist was in the wrong, only a statement that the bus was indicating and starting to pull out. If that, in Nethalus view, is sufficient to mean that the cyclist is in the wrong then she oughtn't be driving a bus.



> and did say something to the bus driver



Something along the lines of 'thanks mate'. Gee, a cyclist gets cut up and responds by being seriously over-polite to the motorist. The motorist then gets insulting, having initially tried to take road space from the cyclist and then being called up _politely_ for doing so.

Sorry, I'm not really seeing the bus drivers side of the story here. It isn't like the cyclist definitely came from a bad road position, an illegal road position or definitely could or should have let the bus driver out. It depends on the local conditions at the time and its _the cyclists call_. 

Nethalus made as if to pull out in front of the rider, the rider gave the formal, polite response that many cyclists use in such a situation, the bus driver overreacted in a manner that, in other lines of work, would result in disciplinary action.


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

Hey, this is going a bit potty here,

I've worked in retail and had tea breaks with fellow staff and had chats wile working or should I have been taken out and shot for some treasonous peccadillo I muttered when my biro ran out in front of a customer?

I had a biro run out on me the other day, but with the Godlike control I have over my bike, and my emotions, I took positive action to avoid it and we all lived happily ever after.

So there.

T x


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Really? Who says? More to the point, what of it? Its now appropriate to make as to pull out into the path of a vehicle that _might_ have broken the law? Ridiculous assertion, really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Just a small point,but unless the bike was at a point where slowing or stopping isnt an option,I am under the impression that vehicles are required to give way to pcv's?Or am i wrong in that assumption?


----------



## nethalus (14 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah come on guys, leave off Nethalus. It wasn't a very bad thing to do, and quite understandable IMO.



I admit I shouldn't have done it like, and I haven't done it again since. Mind you I know other bus drivers who have done far wose!!


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Just a small point,but unless the bike was at a point where slowing or stopping isnt an option,I am under the impression that vehicles are required to give way to pcv's?Or am i wrong in that assumption?



If its safe to do so, you're meant to let a bus out. If for whatever reason it isn't safe to do so, or if letting the bus out is in any way going to increase your risk, then you're certainly not required to do so. Or, in other words, its bad form not to let a bus out if you can reasonably do so, but the decision as to whether it is reasonable to do so has to be left to the individual road user.


----------



## domd1979 (14 Dec 2007)

I'm under the same impression since its in the Highway Code... No doubt someone will point out the absence of the word "must" in a minute... People not letting buses pull out really irritates me - it isn't difficult. Part of cycling or driving is anticipating what other road users are going to do. Anticipating a bus might put its right indicator on and need to pull out into the carriageway isn't rocket science; neither is the act of stopping/slowing down to let it out. Amusingly people who don't let buses out have shot themselves in the foot, because lay-bys for bus stops are increasingly out of fashion, so buses increasingly have to stop in the carriageway. 



col said:


> Just a small point,but unless the bike was at a point where slowing or stopping isnt an option,I am under the impression that vehicles are required to give way to pcv's?Or am i wrong in that assumption?


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> People not letting buses pull out really irritates me - it isn't difficult.



I agree entirely. Usually it isn't hard at all, and you should be anticipating well in advance whether a bus is likely to want out. Its only sensible. 

But that doesn't, of course, mean that you'll never end up going past a bus that is stopped, or that a bus driver won't just indicate and pull out rather abruptly when you're committed to going past. There are a couple of layby style bus stops around here where many bus drivers seem happy to pull in to at an angle, meaning that they've got a blind spot as big as the whole road behind them, they seem to rely on the fact that traffic will always stop to let them out. Fine, except when they start to move out into road space you're imminently entering; sometimes however careful you are that kind of pulling out can be a little hairy, especially when they indicate for only a fraction of a second before pulling out.


----------



## nethalus (14 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Thats got nothing whatsoever to do with Users point.
> 
> You were identifiable as an employee of a particular company, being paid to do a job, and you abused a member of the public by making a rude gesture. Its exacly the same as a shop worker coming out to the shop door and being rude to someone, or someone in a bank coming onto the counter and yelling abuse at the person in the middle of the queue who is acting impatient.
> 
> Why is it okay to be abusive to the public if you're a bus driver and not if, say, you're working in a bank?


While at work I've been verbally abused, threatened and assaulted by passengers, taxi drivers, van drivers, car drivers and pedestrians.
I've had a mini cab driver shout "effing w**ker" at me for no reason other than I moved lanes, with clear indication and in a safe gap, and he didn't like the fact a bus got in front of him. The name of his firm, Road Runners if anyone's interested, was plastered all his cab but I doubted he was overley bothered about his company's reputation when he shouted it out in front of dozens of people.
Had a landscape gardeners van decide he wasn't going to hang back five seconds to let me get into a gap so we could safely pass each other, no he sat there giving me a w**ker sign! Also had a charming gentleman pedestrian, who for no reason I can fathom decided to call me a "fat bus driving sl*g"
Been called an "effing fat b*tch" by some of the charming traveling public so many times now I've lost count. Just shrug my shoulders now and think "What ever mate!!"


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> I'm under the same impression since its in the Highway Code... No doubt someone will point out the absence of the word "must" in a minute... People not letting buses pull out really irritates me - it isn't difficult. Part of cycling or driving is anticipating what other road users are going to do. Anticipating a bus might put its right indicator on and need to pull out into the carriageway isn't rocket science; neither is the act of stopping/slowing down to let it out. Amusingly people who don't let buses out have shot themselves in the foot, because lay-bys for bus stops are increasingly out of fashion, so buses increasingly have to stop in the carriageway.




Indicating and moving,is a good sign that im moving off,but the amount of times people have kept the same speed and passed me 20 or 30 yards down the road,or shouted and honked,that they may have needed to take their foot of the accelerator for a few seconds.A bus is generally a slow vehicle,but a lot of people seem to think it should be going the limit as soon as it pulls away.If we were to wait for a couple of hundred yards gap,we would never pull off


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> While at work I've been verbally abused, threatened and assaulted by passengers, taxi drivers, van drivers, car drivers and pedestrians.



None of which excuses you being abusive to an entirely different person.



> I've had a mini cab driver shout "effing w**ker" at me for no reason other than I moved lanes, with clear indication and in a safe gap, and he didn't like the fact a bus got in front of him. The name of his firm, Road Runners if anyone's interested, was plastered all his cab but I doubted he was overley bothered about his company's reputation when he shouted it out in front of dozens of people.



And that doesn't excuse you being abusive to another road user entirely either.



> Had a landscape gardeners van decide he wasn't going to hang back five seconds to let me get into a gap so we could safely pass each other, no he sat there giving me a w**ker sign! Also had a charming gentleman pedestrian, who for no reason I can fathom decided to call me a "fat bus driving sl*g"



Which again doesn't mean that the cyclist you were making rude gestures at was fair game.



> Been called an "effing fat b*tch" by some of the charming traveling public so many times now I've lost count. Just shrug my shoulders now and think "What ever mate!!"



So what are you saying, its okay for you as a supposed professional driver to abuse other people on the roads? But you've just said that you _know_ what you did was wrong. _Make up your mind._

You know what you did was wrong. You also know that you can't justify it based on the cyclists actions because (according to your first posting) the cyclist wasn't even rude to you, he actually thanked you, I presume intentionally so that you would have to be _most_ unreasonable to actually abuse the cyclist; its a tactic used by many here. You also know that the cyclist may well have been cycling entirely within the law, yet you assumed otherwise. You base your conclusion that the cyclist should definitely have let you out on an incomplete understanding of what the cyclist was doing, as is entirely clear from the fact that you hadn't even seen the cyclist when you started pulling out. You are therefore in no position to judge whether the cyclist could safely have stopped to let you out.

I don't see why we're having this discussion. We all agree that if it is safe to let a bus out then you should, but its also clear that your manoevre and your subsequent behaviour were both inappropriate.


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> ....People not letting buses pull out really irritates me - it isn't difficult. Part of cycling or driving is anticipating what other road users are going to do. Anticipating a bus might put its right indicator on and need to pull out into the carriageway isn't rocket science; neither is the act of stopping/slowing down to let it out.



I'd agree, but have to say that I don't do anything in the way of slowing/moving over until I see the indication from the bus. Anticipating a move that doesn't happen can result in problems rejoining the traffic stream you left, and/or slowing the following traffic unnecessarily (at least if the bus is indicating, the following traffic can see why you're taking the action you are).

I do agree with Cab that the final decision belongs to me - I know my bike, I know how quickly I can stop it in a controlled fashion, and I probably know how (im)patient/(in)considerate the driver behind me is going to be if I do slow or stop. FWIW, when I have passed an indicating bus, I apologise to the driver and explain why (if possible) later on. (Passed one in the rain a few weeks ago, and did that).


----------



## nethalus (14 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> None of which excuses you being abusive to an entirely different person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No what I was saying is that worse things happen all the time to loads of people everyday. If you bothered to read back you will see that twice I have already admitted that I should'nt have stuck twos up at the cyclist.
And the cyclist was being sarcastic when they "thanked" me, after they had shouted Oi, that was what peed me off and led to me sticking twos up at them.


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> No what I was saying is that worse things happen all the time to loads of people everyday. If you bothered to read back you will see that twice I have already admitted that I should'nt have stuck twos up at the cyclist.



Yes, I know, which is why I pointed out that you had already said that you were in the wrong. I simply don't see why giving us a list of your own grievances on the road is in any way appropriate. So you've been insulted too, what on earth has that got to do with the fact that you were abusive to someone who had _nothing at all to do with the people who have given you a hard time_?


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

WOW, judge and jury Cab!

I think Nanny has been over starching your shorts again!
We at Tdr1nka Towers salute you, and give way everytime to Omnibus driving Public servants, like your good self!

Don't worry about Cab, he must have dropped his sliderule down the stereogram........

T x


----------



## BentMikey (14 Dec 2007)

I don't see her trying to justify it. She fessed up it was wrong, and that's all.

Cab, I think you're getting a little out of hand here. I think you should chill before it gets any more embarrassing.


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> We at Tdr1nka Towers salute you, and give way everytime to Omnibus driving Public servants, like your good self!
> 
> Don't worry about Cab, he must have dropped his sliderule down the stereogram........
> 
> T x



The above section was directed at Nethalus and not Cab.

And I meant to include Mr. Paul in the comments for Cab.

T x


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I don't see her trying to justify it. She fessed up it was wrong, and that's all.
> 
> Cab, I think you're getting a little out of hand here. I think you should chill before it gets any more embarrassing.



I think you're being far too lenient on her behaviour; she's fessed up that her response to the cyclists (really fairly polite) comment was wrong, as you say. But it is appropriate to reinforce the point that in other lines of work that would be a very serious matter, nor is it wrong to point out that having a list of bad stuff thats happened to you on the road has got _no bearing at all_on this situation.

But most important, I want Nethalus to try to see this from the likely perspective of the cyclist. A bus pulled out into space that the cyclist was moving in to, the cyclist would have been scared, intimidated and rather shocked. Nethalus doesn't seem to appreciate that its the cyclists call to let her out or not, its the decision of whichever road user is in the main carriageway to decide whether or not it is safe to slow or stop and let the bus out. Just having signalled doesn't make it a safe manoevre; Nethalus needs to learn that.


----------



## Terminator (14 Dec 2007)

Don't you lot ever get on your bikes instead if bitching on here?


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

Lenient, LOL!

I know we said Cambridge was an old city, I never figured for Currently;Medieval!

Please, please, please can someone explain to me why on earth a bus driver might be on a cycling Forum if they don't actually ride a bike, hence nix most of Mr. Pauls & Cabs verbiage?

This is reminding me of the Interview Technique films that John Cleese made for schools!

Tx

Don't worry Nethulas, I can type all day if need be!


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

Ok, that clears that bit up then,

mumble, mumble, sorry, mumble, mumble,

but fair play to her for coming aboard eh?

er..T
x


----------



## Tynan (14 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

> Of course. But when you're in paid employment, representing a public service, you're accountable to them. You have a responsibility. It's not an acceptable standard of behaviour.



I totally agree.so what about cyclists who have shouted or tried to damage the vehicle that threatens them?


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> None of which excuses you being abusive to an entirely different person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





We only agree on the fingers,not the manoever


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

"Hold very tight please" cue my HUGE trike bell!

T x


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

> That's very naughty. I don't know where they'd be able to sack you from though. The CTC? Greenpeace? BNP?





Thats my point,cyclists have a responsibilty to put forward a good appearance too dont they? Or is it only people in paid jobs that have to be very good all the time?And because your not paid.....?


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Thats my point,cyclists have a responsibilty to put forward a good appearance too dont they? Or is it only people in paid jobs that have to be very good all the time?And because your not paid.....?



There is a good argument that we have a duty to each other as cyclists not to get a bad name. I kind of see that, and would hold that cyclists who visibly flout the law and who needlessly give people aggro are a bad example. But thats as far as I'd go; an individual cycling out and about on their own is an individual, not responsible for or accountable to an employer.


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> There is a good argument that we have a duty to each other as cyclists not to get a bad name. I kind of see that, and would hold that cyclists who visibly flout the law and who needlessly give people aggro are a bad example. But thats as far as I'd go; an individual cycling out and about on their own is an individual, not responsible for or accountable to an employer.




But we are all still individuals,and being so have different reactions to things,some will react badly some wont,Sticking the fingers up,because someone was being sarcastic to you,isnt as bad as things that do happen.So i do think this is being blown up out of proportion really.


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

col said:


> But we are all still individuals,and being so have different reactions to things,some will react badly some wont,Sticking the fingers up,because someone was being sarcastic to you,isnt as bad as things that do happen.So i do think this is being blown up out of proportion really.



I go back to the point that when representing an employer, such behaviour in most jobs would get you into serious hot water, if not simply sacked. Nethalus seems to believe that bus drivers should be granted more license to be rude to the public than, say, people working in a shop or a bank. I can't see a good argument for that.


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

Ahhh, ha ha ha HA!

What about cycle couriers!

Mmmm?

T x


----------



## Tynan (14 Dec 2007)

this would seem to be about setting up rules that help prove one side of the argument

I'd rather people were themselves rather than than a drone, we're talking about a bus driver ffs, with a proud tradition of being robust and defiant in the throbbing hurley burley of the London rush hour

and it was only two fingers in response, not gun fire


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

Ok,lets look at it again.The bus indicated to pull away,and started to,but a bike seemed to appear from nowhere.Now because the lights were red behind, and nothing normally may be coming,and the way the bike must have been behind the bus,not in mirror angles,so unseen by the driver,who may have missed the bike rlj ing possibly,because of dealing with on off passengers?then as it started to pull away,a bike is then visible at the rear of the bus.It seems to me ,that because of cicumstances,who is to blame for the confrontation?The drivers reaction to sarcasm and an appearing bike,well sticking the fingers up,is as agreed the wrong thing to do.what about the bike?they may not have seen the indicators of the bus,but thats unlikely,as they are quiet visible things,so did the cyclist decide to ignore the fact that the bus was going to pull away?And carry on regardless,then its the cyclists fault isnt it?
Did the bike rlj? who knows,but its a possibility?The bus driver wasnt expecting the bike,and didnt see it on the first check,but did on the second as starting to pull away.Now if the bike wasnt there on the first check,at the same time as indicating to pull away,where was it?Whatever we decide,we dont know why the cyclist did what they did,was the road slippy?only the bus driver could answer that,was it dangerous for the bike to slow and let the bus go?unlikely.What it seems we have,is someone not willing to give when they should have,not because they have to,but because its safer to.As for hinting that people shouldnt be in their jobs because they sometimes act like most of us may at some time,is a bit harsh.In other words,these things happen,how we deal with them is what counts.


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

Dammit, this debate is near impenetrable!

As a MTB rider I have had(and should renew)3rd party insurance so that in the event of my error I'm covered.
I think I'd even be happy to pay a low level of cycle road tax, if only to ensure some level of respect and autonomy on the street.

T x


----------



## col (14 Dec 2007)

> Yes, I see your point. And I agree that a cyclist's poor behaviour is generally what a driver remembers.
> 
> But we're not talking about cyclists here. We're talking about someone who is being paid to provide a service and representing a company. And the fact that bus drivers can (and often do) suit themselves with the language and gestures that they choose and it's accepted as ok, but a librarian would be sacked for telling a customer to <insert expletive> off.



But a librarian is very unlikely to get cut up at the fiction section a few timesAlso in the ten hours of a day,lots of things happen,sometimes repeatedly,which could be dangerous,and eventually,even the mildest person in the world will react,it happens,its human nature,doesnt matter what job we do.


----------



## nethalus (14 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Lenient, LOL!
> 
> I know we said Cambridge was an old city, I never figured for Currently;Medieval!
> 
> ...


This was the original thread the was started by Magnatom about me and my infamous comment on YouTube. 
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2438&highlight=bus+driver+question


----------



## Cab (14 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Ok,lets look at it again.The bus indicated to pull away,and started to,but a bike seemed to appear from nowhere.Now because the lights were red behind, and nothing normally may be coming,and the way the bike must have been behind the bus,not in mirror angles,so unseen by the driver,who may have missed the bike rlj ing possibly,because of dealing with on off passengers?



Nethalus stated that there was also a legal route by which the cyclist could have got there. So lets take the whole rlj thing out of the equation, if the cyclist could legally have got there then the bus driver must accept that the cyclist might be there, period. Whether he's jumped a red light or not is now completely irrelevent, if a cyclist can legally be there then the bus driver has to be alert to that.

So, a cyclist who has legally cycled into a position in which the bus driver has not, when checking, seen him. At worst the cyclist is guilty of bad road positioning here, but we can't even say that for sure, if the road is bendy it might be nigh on impossible for the cyclist to be much more visible.



> then as it started to pull away,a bike is then visible at the rear of the bus.



Thats pretty certain. The bus starts moving into space occupied, or shortly to be occupied, by the bike. Bike either hasn't been noticed because it was in a blind spot, or hasn't been noticed because the driver didn't look properly. Either way, its now clear that the manoevre that the bus driver was trying to start is not appropriate, and the bus driver has to stop. She did this, and then...



> It seems to me ,that because of cicumstances,who is to blame for the confrontation?The drivers reaction to sarcasm and an appearing bike,well sticking the fingers up,is as agreed the wrong thing to do.



Precisely. The cyclist wasn't really rude, the bus driver was. So the bus driver has made an error, she's scared the cyclist and now she's abusing him, and all he's done is been polite. Cyclist might have been able to stop and let the bus go safely, but the he's made the decision that he can't do so _and thats his call, not the bus drivers_.



> what about the bike?they may not have seen the indicators of the bus,but thats unlikely,as they are quiet visible things,so did the cyclist decide to ignore the fact that the bus was going to pull away?And carry on regardless,then its the cyclists fault isnt it?



Possibly, but we can't say. What we can say is that its the cyclists call. While you should allow a bus out if its safe to do so, it isn't up to a bus driver to enforce that rule using a bus. Its down to the cyclist to decide whether, on balance, he can safely allow the bus out. I don't devolve that choice to anyone else, neither do you, nor does anyone believe that we _should_. 

So, the cyclist has excercised a reasonable (legal) choice to pass the bus. It might be rude, it might be inconsiderate. But his fair choice nonetheless.



> Did the bike rlj? who knows,but its a possibility?



As I've said, if the cyclist can be there legally then this is now an irrelevent question.

(cut)


> Whatever we decide,we dont know why the cyclist did what they did,was the road slippy?only the bus driver could answer that,was it dangerous for the bike to slow and let the bus go?unlikely.



Heck, its often dangerous to slow down sharply and let a vehicle out! I wouldn't say thats an unlikely scenario at all. More importantly, I'd take other road users second guessing my choices on that very, very badly indeed!



> What it seems we have,is someone not willing to give when they should have,not because they have to,but because its safer to.As for hinting that people shouldnt be in their jobs because they sometimes act like most of us may at some time,is a bit harsh.In other words,these things happen,how we deal with them is what counts.



I didn't hint it, I outright said it. If you can't deal with another road user legally being in a place that is inconvenient to you, and who is subsequently polite about a mistake you make because of it, then get off the road. Really, whether you're a professional or not, get the hell off the road if you're going to be wound up by that.


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

Remind me, the over reacting referrs to which part of the thread.

My final offer, a verbal warning for the hand gesture.

I've once been told to 'Look, just F*ck Off!' by a Policeman at the roadside who was reaching the end of his tether, I took it as reason to let matters slide as he was obviously having a hard enough time.
Should I have performed a citizens arrest, maybe taken his number and reported him? No, I took a humanist approach and let the matter go.


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

Nethalus, Nethalus, Nethalus,

How you have shaken and unleashed the Bus Finder Generals!
Thanks for the link, I'm up to speed now, watch me goooooo!

T x


----------



## nethalus (14 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Nethalus, Nethalus, Nethalus,
> 
> How you have shaken and unleashed the Bus Finder Generals!
> Thanks for the link, I'm up to speed now, watch me goooooo!
> ...



There's only one of me you'll be pleased to know!


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Dec 2007)

"Really, whether you're a professional or not, get the hell off the road if you're going to be wound up by that."

Guys, guys, guys, can we get some bloody perspective here?
Bus, we know, probably in the right.
Cyclist only potentially wrong due to road space issue.
Frustrated driver, hand signal, wrong.

Imagine having the stress of potentially hitting someone when it was their own mistake, something I'm certain happens to public transport drivers daily.

I think Cab & Co. need to go back to the 1950's for the type of road etiqutte they're looking for.

T x


----------



## domd1979 (14 Dec 2007)

I sympathise a great deal with bus drivers. I can understand stopping alongside lay-bys, since in heavy traffic it takes so long to pull out of them again - hence round Brum there's a lot of build-outs to formalise stopping in the carriageway. I can also understand pushing into the traffic as otherwise they'd never get out (last night on the bus to Wolves, it took ages to pull out of a particular lay-by into a virtually static queue of traffic leading up to a roundabout because no one would let it out, in the end the bus just edged out forcing someone to stop - delay to anyone letting the bus out: nil).

If you consider an average bus route has around 20 stops, and say it takes 20 seconds to pull out of each stop, that's around 6 minutes of delay on say a 35-40 minute running time. Drivers are under pressure to keep to time, and passengers need to get where they're going. 

If you look at minutes of delay per person caused by buses having difficulty pulling out, 6 minutes per passenger on a full bus is a lot of delay compared to about 3 seconds to one driver to let the bus out.



> Agreed. Equally irritating though is those bus drivers who pull over without indicating or stop alongside bus stop laybyes in the middle or the road just because they can't be bothered to wait for a gap in the traffic once they want to start again. That's part of their job. The laybyes are there to get buses out of the flow and allow traffic to continue.
> 
> Or the drivers who see you coming at a fair rate and rather than wait an extra couple of seconds for you to pass pull out regardless.
> 
> It works both ways.


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

> OK. Social worker then.
> 
> And I speak from past experience. Far more stressful than driving a bus. Far higher level of conflict, but still the expectation to remain professional.
> 
> Or lawyer. Politician (allowances for Prescott).



So a social worker gets cut up at the fiction section

I agree about social working,but in all my past jobs,there was only one that was as stressfull,and had the same sort of risks,that was a manager for quick save,ie shoplifters,not a day went by when you werent wrestling in the isles with them,or expecting your car to still be there when you locked up,or worse.


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Nethalus stated that there was also a legal route by which the cyclist could have got there. So lets take the whole rlj thing out of the equation, if the cyclist could legally have got there then the bus driver must accept that the cyclist might be there, period. Whether he's jumped a red light or not is now completely irrelevent, if a cyclist can legally be there then the bus driver has to be alert to that.
> 
> So, a cyclist who has legally cycled into a position in which the bus driver has not, when checking, seen him. At worst the cyclist is guilty of bad road positioning here, but we can't even say that for sure, if the road is bendy it might be nigh on impossible for the cyclist to be much more visible.
> 
> ...





But the bus driver didnt make a mistake did she?She stopped when she saw it appear from behind.I say the cyclist made the mistake when they still went to overtake,even though they were not at the back of the bus while it was indicating.The drivers first check says this.Only a fool would attempt to pass if the indicators are on,unless they werent on,as the cyclist started to reach the back of the bus,and the bike showed itself at speed.
Oi shouted isnt really a polite way,nor sarcasm,especailly when they are in the wrong anyway.
A cyclist slowing down on a bus and cycle lane because they left it too late to pass,?No ,i cant see where that would be very dangerous?
The bus driver didnt enforce any rule either,the bike wasnt there at first ,then when seen the bus stopped.So it wasnt occupied space either.
Come on Cab,there are holes in this debate,i expected more from you


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

> Agreed. Equally irritating though is those bus drivers who pull over without indicating or stop alongside bus stop laybyes in the middle or the road just because they can't be bothered to wait for a gap in the traffic once they want to start again. That's part of their job. The laybyes are there to get buses out of the flow and allow traffic to continue.
> 
> Or the drivers who see you coming at a fair rate and rather than wait an extra couple of seconds for you to pass pull out regardless.
> 
> It works both ways.




This is a generalisation again.The minority might,but most dont.


----------



## Cab (15 Dec 2007)

col said:


> But the bus driver didnt make a mistake did she?



Yes, she really did. Bottom line is that she didn't see a cyclist that was coming past her until she started to pull out. You can kill someone that way.

For whatever reason, her actions risked the welfare of the cyclist, a cyclist who had broken no law, who had made no demonstrable error. Cycling home yesterday, on two occasions I overtook busses that were stopped, both started indicating after I'd moved well out to overtake them; I could have pulled a sharp stop in icy conditions to let them go or I could do the safer thing and continue past them, knowing that had they indicated earlier I could have let them out.



> She stopped when she saw it appear from behind.



Which was too late. Whether by design (blind spot) or lack of attention, she saw the cyclist too late. You don't start moving out into moving traffic where there isn't a gap, its your error if you do so.



> I say the cyclist made the mistake when they still went to overtake,even though they were not at the back of the bus while it was indicating.



No, the driver didn't notice the bike. Doesn't mean it wasn't there.

(further cut, unread)

I shall not entertain any further possibility that Nethalus was not in the wrong, nor shall I accept that her subsequent behaviour can be excused in any way.


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

I think I pretty much go along with Cab in this discussion. The important point in my view is that the bus has started a maneuver that has brought it into conflict with a vehicle that has the right of way. The cyclist has sensibly called an audible warning and then received abuse.
Bus driver has made a mistake (it happens) by pulling out into the path of traffic, and then (for which there is no excuse) has vented frustration from the days irritations by abusing the cyclist.
The mistake is perfectly understandable, the salute is not.
Naughty bus driver!
There, I think that's appropriate admonishment for this minuscule misdemeanor.

Much respect to Nethalus for engaging with us on such topics, if all bus drivers cared as much the world would be a happier place.


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Yes, she really did. Bottom line is that she didn't see a cyclist that was coming past her until she started to pull out. You can kill someone that way.
> 
> For whatever reason, her actions risked the welfare of the cyclist, a cyclist who had broken no law, who had made no demonstrable error. Cycling home yesterday, on two occasions I overtook busses that were stopped, both started indicating after I'd moved well out to overtake them; I could have pulled a sharp stop in icy conditions to let them go or I could do the safer thing and continue past them, knowing that had they indicated earlier I could have let them out.
> 
> ...





It wasnt there when first check was done,when second was done the bus stopped,what mistake is there?
As you pulled out in time to be seen,there is no issue there

She must have noticed it,she stopped

Nethalus was wrong to stick the fingers up.But did nothing else wrong,other than being surprised by a cyclist appearing from behind the bus using bad road position.


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

> Agreed. Equally irritating though is those bus drivers who pull over without indicating or stop alongside bus stop laybyes in the middle or the road just because they can't be bothered to wait for a gap in the traffic once they want to start again. That's part of their job. The laybyes are there to get buses out of the flow and allow traffic to continue.
> 
> Or the drivers who see you coming at a fair rate and rather than wait an extra couple of seconds for you to pass pull out regardless.
> 
> It works both ways.





"Those bus drivers" And "Or the drivers"
Point taken, But how do you differentiate between "those" and all others?


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

col said:


> It wasnt there when first check was done,when second was done the bus stopped,what mistake is there?
> As you pulled out in time to be seen,there is no issue there
> 
> She must have noticed it,she stopped
> ...




From the OP:


> The cyclist shouted "Oi thanks mate" as the bus continued to move. So the bus driver opened the cab window and stuck twos up at the cyclist before accelerating away.



Doesn't really sound like stopping to me?


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> From the OP:
> 
> 
> Doesn't really sound like stopping to me?




Read back,and she says the bike wasnt there when she started to pull away.The amount of times i v checked then pulled away,only for a vehicle to appear and cause me to stop,iv lost count,it will probably keep happening,but does that make me a bad driver?Its part of day to day driving.Ill remember next time it happens,that my actions are inexcusable,because someone else used bad road position,and that i avoided an accident.


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

You seem to be assuming she saw the cyclist, realised her maneuver was in conflict with a vehicle she hadn't previously noticed and then gave way. From my reading of the OP the driver took the time to wave two fingers while still moving before putting her foot down.


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> You seem to be assuming she saw the cyclist, realised her maneuver was in conflict with a vehicle she hadn't previously noticed and then gave way. From my reading of the OP the driver took the time to wave two fingers while still moving before putting her foot down.




Im not assuming she saw the cyclist,because she didnt,it wasnt there when she first checked,it appeared while she was moving away.The impression i got ,was that when the cyclist did appear,they stopped,and shout "oi" and "Thanks",so letting the bus go.But probably still shocking the bus driver as to where did that come from.So i can only conclude ,that the bike was behind the bus as it indicated and started to move,but decided to still try and pass.?


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

Well the actual details are difficult to ascertain without clear video of the incident, but the mere fact that the bus was STILL indicating shows that it was STILL making a positional change in the road while coming into the conflict with the cyclist. Therefore I assume the cyclist wasn't 'overtaking' so much as trying to continue her course, when the bus joined her lane.
Indicating doesn't give you the right to pull out in front of people, even if you are a bus.


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Well the actual details are difficult to ascertain without clear video of the incident, but the mere fact that the bus was STILL indicating shows that it was STILL making a positional change in the road while coming into the conflict with the cyclist. Therefore I assume the cyclist wasn't 'overtaking' so much as trying to continue her course, when the bus joined her lane.
> Indicating doesn't give you the right to pull out in front of people, even if you are a bus.





And making a ham sandwich doesnt mean you have to share it
Whats that got to do with it?
It sounds to me like its the cyclist that brought themselves into conflict with the bus.?Like you say,if it was still indicating and moving,why did the cyclist carry on to try and pass it?When it seemed to be too far back,and out of site to the driver,to do that?


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

Who knows? We're not talking about the cyclist's actions, we're talking about the bus driver's.


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

> That's easy. "those" are the ones exhibiting the inappropriate behaviour and driving like idiots.





Again good point


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

Indeed Mr Paul, we should consider 'our own' actions, which in this conversation is Nethalus' actions.


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Who knows? We're not talking about the cyclist's actions, we're talking about the bus driver's.




I thought the question was "Was this bus driver bad"? we already agree she was for the fingers,but imo,not for the maneouver.Which brings the cyclists actions into question.


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

Shall we drag her off the bus and give her a good spanking anyway?


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

> This is boring now.
> 
> I'll repeat my earlier comment-
> 
> ...





Yet again good point


----------



## col (15 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Shall we drag her off the bus and give her a good spanking anyway?




OOerr


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Shall we drag her off the bus and give her a good spanking anyway?



Medieval, as I said before.

Brock, what a truly facile comment.

Had this bus driver been a man I feel you'd be offering a stout hearty handshake, a pint and you'd all be off to see the morris dancing, quicker than you can say 'Wassail!'.

Let Nethalus take her view of this thread, and some of it's contributors, back to 'Bloodbath Busses', or whatever the forum is called, and see what good it does.

I believe I can already hear the laugher in every Bus Station canteen across the land.

My humble opinion,

T x


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

What's wrong with facile comments?

And why on earth do you think my opinion would be different if the driver was a man?

As I said before I have respect for Nethalus as a thoughtful bus driver and contributer.

And what's an optamist anyway?


----------



## gambatte (15 Dec 2007)

I see no one seems to be looking at the possibility that the cyclist just dropped off the kerb behind the bus?

Its possible that Netty saw everything that was there on her 1st check. I know plenty of 'drivers' who wouldn't have bothered with a second.


----------



## gambatte (15 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> And what's an optamist anyway?



Someone who thinks their eye test will show 20/20 vision?


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

Heh bravo!


----------



## magnatom (15 Dec 2007)

I haven't been at the computer much over the last couple of days can someone please provide a wee summary of the last 10 pages or so. There is no way I am going to read all of that!!

Can I aldo ask that cab doesn't write it as he has a habit of writting long posts.....


----------



## Brock (15 Dec 2007)

Sure,
Much argument over whether the bus driver's actual driving could be at fault, probably because of a lack of clarity about the described incident.
General agreement that rude gestures from a professional driver is naughty.

Much the same as when you left it really Mag


----------



## gambatte (15 Dec 2007)

10 pages?...

Oh, you mean cabs last post?


----------



## tdr1nka (15 Dec 2007)

As I said at my last eye test, 
'You must be forever the optomatrist!'
For pedlling pedants everywhere..........

T x


----------



## nethalus (15 Dec 2007)

I've actually found a video of the area where the incident happened, filmed from the top deck of a bus on the same route. If you watch from about 45 seconds onwards into the film, you see the bus stop at a set of traffic lights in the left turning lane, but go straight on to the little bus lane with the bus stop at the end. It's there that the cycling student tried to overtake when I was pulling away.


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2007)

Another thing I've thought of, I'm pretty sure the highway code says somewhere that one of the things you definitely don't do when being overtaken is speed up, which is apparently exactly what you did after flicking two fingers at her.. So technically I suppose that's naughty too?

The video does help visualise the incident


----------



## col (16 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Another thing I've thought of, I'm pretty sure the highway code says somewhere that one of the things you definitely don't do when being overtaken is speed up, which is apparently exactly what you did after flicking two fingers at her.. So technically I suppose that's naughty too?
> 
> The video does help visualise the incident





Didnt the cyclist stop,after saying oi and thanks,after seemingly to appear from nowhere?
And are you not supposed to try to overtake a vehicle already pulling out,if you cant do it safely,which seems exactly what the cyclist did.mmm very naughty


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2007)

What makes you think that?


----------



## col (16 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> What makes you think that?





Thats the impression i get.


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2007)

col said:


> And are you not supposed to try to overtake a vehicle already pulling out,if you cant do it safely,which seems exactly what the cyclist did.mmm very naughty



We're not interested whether the cyclist was wrong or not, since they aren't here to explain themselves, we're trying to establish (at her own request) if the driver's actions upon noticing the cyclist make her a 'bad bus driver' at that point or not. 

Perhaps we could let her off if she won a game of online cribbage against a champion from cakestop?


----------



## domd1979 (16 Dec 2007)

In the scale of things, probably not. There's much much worse things that you could do when driving than stick fingers up at people. A bus driver sticking two fingers up at an errant cyclist is no different to the many people on here who admit to yelling/swearing at motorists, who in their view are in the wrong, when they are cycling.




Brock said:


> we're trying to establish (at her own request) if the driver's actions upon noticing the cyclist make her a 'bad bus driver' at that point or not.


----------



## vernon (16 Dec 2007)

It doesn't help that the junction's functionality was all screwed up when it was redesigned quite a while back. Have a look at the cycle lane as you approach the junction. I don't know who the redesigned junction was meant to help.

Look at the length of the bus lane on the far side of the junction where the bus stop is. 

I'm sure that the juction was reworked to spend some surplus money ring fenced for road safety improvement purposes but with no quality assurance measures to assess the success.

Getting back to the original posting, the cyclist should have held back. It isn't wise to take on a motor vehicle especially as big as a bus.


----------



## col (16 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> We're not interested whether the cyclist was wrong or not, since they aren't here to explain themselves, we're trying to establish (at her own request) if the driver's actions upon noticing the cyclist make her a 'bad bus driver' at that point or not.
> 
> Perhaps we could let her off if she won a game of online cribbage against a champion from cakestop?




We already agree she was bad for sticking the fingers up,but other than that,there is nothing to let her off for.


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2007)

Only if we accept your interpretation of events, which fills a lot of unknowns with your own imaginary reconstruction, or 'impression' as you put it.
I say she was accelerating while being overtaken by another vehicle, which fits with the facts as she gave them.
you say the bus and bicycle stopped, which is just something you made up out of your Christmas cheer addled imaginary fantasy box.


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2007)

'level with the back of it' Hmmmm does that mean the the cyclist herself or the very front of her tyre though?


----------



## Cab (16 Dec 2007)

> She didn't say she was being overtaken. She said that she pulled out when the cyclist was behind her and about to try and overtake.



So by her account she pulled out into moving traffic where there was no gap; the cyclist (for reasons we cannot ascertain) chose not to let her out, and its _his_ call as to whether doing so is safe, no one elses.


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2007)

Anyway, would an accelerating bus driver with the cab window closed actually be able to hear a female call from a bicycle that hadn't even begun an overtaking maneuver?
This whole thing stinks of conspiracy to me, how do we know she isn't lying and just ran the cyclist over for a laugh?


----------



## domd1979 (16 Dec 2007)

You can't stick two fingers through a closed cab window.





Brock said:


> Anyway, would an accelerating bus driver with the cab window closed actually be able to hear a female call from a bicycle that hadn't even begun an overtaking maneuver?


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2007)

I deduced like Sherlock Holmes from her own account that she 'opened the cab window' for the purpose of the obscene gesture.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (16 Dec 2007)

Sometimes when you're driving a big vehicle, you have to accept that you're going to piss people off. I have to negotiate a roundabout in Dudley fairly frequently, where the traffic with priority over me is going at a fair old lick and is nearly all using the exit just past the one I'm entering the roundabout from. I wait for a reasonably large gap then go as quick as I can, usually having to force someone to slow down and occasionally getting an angry blast on their horn. Now, I know it's not ideal to force someone to slow down, but there really isn't much choice when your vehicle is so large. And we're taught to do this kind of thing on the HGV test, believe it or not.


----------



## nethalus (16 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Anyway, would an accelerating bus driver with the cab window closed actually be able to hear a female call from a bicycle that hadn't even begun an overtaking maneuver?
> This whole thing stinks of conspiracy to me, how do we know she isn't lying and just ran the cyclist over for a laugh?



The cab window was open wide, as it was a fairly warm day. The particular bus I had was a bit sluggish at pulling away, but when he got going he easily got up to speed. I saw a chance to get out of a bus stop, as the other traffic had stopped for the lights and the road was mine. I pulled away and seemingly out of nowhere this cyclist appeared. Now the bus being a little sluggish to begin with I suppose she might have mistaken that for me slowing down to let her past but I wasn't and she didn't like that so she shouted at me. Just as my bus reached that critical point where it would start to pick up speed, I stuck my hand out the window with a clear two fingers, then let the beast fly up the road. It was naughty and I shouldn't have done it, but I can't change history. If I could I would appologise to the young lady, but as I'll probably never see her again I can't

Sorry I don't find running over people funny, others might but I don't. I know a bus driver who was involved in a collision with a young cyclist. He said for weeks after the event every time he closed his eyes he kept seeing the whole scene repeating it's self over and over and had trouble sleeping. It took him a long time to get over the trauma of the accident. No, sorry accidents like that are just not funny.


----------



## col (16 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Only if we accept your interpretation of events, which fills a lot of unknowns with your own imaginary reconstruction, or 'impression' as you put it.
> I say she was accelerating while being overtaken by another vehicle, which fits with the facts as she gave them.
> you say the bus and bicycle stopped, which is just something you made up out of your Christmas cheer addled imaginary fantasy box.




Isnt that what we are all doing really?


----------



## mickle (16 Dec 2007)

Good for you nethalus for sticking your neck out. 

The two fingered salute is a venerable British tradition (unlike the crass American middle fingered gesture) and we should be encouraging its use. A good flicking is something to relish for both the flicker of the Vs and the flickee.


----------



## Brock (16 Dec 2007)

But... But... you said in the OP 'The cyclist shouted "Oi thanks mate" as the bus continued to move. So the bus driver opened the cab window and stuck twos up at the cyclist'

But now you're saying the window was already open?? How can we make a considered answer to your question if the already vague 'facts' change?

I still think you're naughty and should say at least one hail mary before you get back in that doom bus.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

> It sounds like there was a gap, but not big enough for her to pull into without slowing the flow of traffic.



Or, in other words, the cyclist coming past chose not to let the bus out. We can't say why, but we all know that such a decsion can be perfectly valid (car right on your tail, insufficient time or space to slow down when you spot the bus indicating, etc.). The gap was therefore not big enough, but the bus driver chose to use her size to bully the cyclist into stopping, quite possibly dangerously.

The bus pulled out, and the driver spotted her error during the manoevre. She could then have stopped pulling out, waved the cyclist on and apologised. Or she could have raised her hand and just acknowledged the mistake. She didn't; in fact, in response to the cyclists polite comment she became insulting, then she drove off in front of him anyway.

Her behaviour was dangerous and it was discourteous. And _then_, knowing that her behaviour was wrong in every way, she came here seeking absolution from cyclists. And, bizarrely considering just how mistaken she is if she thinks that kind of behaviour is forgiveable, she has received it.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> I pulled away and seemingly out of nowhere this cyclist appeared. Now the bus being a little sluggish to begin with I suppose she might have mistaken that for me slowing down to let her past but I wasn't and she didn't like that so she shouted at me.



You pulled out too close in front of a cyclist, illegally and dangerously. The cyclists response was polite and measured, and you responded to that with an obscene gesture.

And you think thats all okay.

Get off the roads.


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> But... But... you said in the OP 'The cyclist shouted "Oi thanks mate" as the bus continued to move. So the bus driver opened the cab window and stuck twos up at the cyclist'
> 
> But now you're saying the window was already open?? How can we make a considered answer to your question if the already vague 'facts' change?
> 
> I still think you're naughty and should say at least one hail mary before you get back in that doom bus.



The window was open, perhaps what I meant was I opened it a bit wider to get my arm out like.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> The window was open, perhaps what I meant was I opened it a bit wider to get my arm out like.



But you _just_ said:



> The cab window was open wide, as it was a fairly warm day.



You're contradicting yourself with each post now


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You pulled out too close in front of a cyclist, illegally and dangerously. The cyclists response was polite and measured, and you responded to that with an obscene gesture.
> 
> And you think thats all okay.
> 
> Get off the roads.



No you get off the road you arrogant little self righteous person. I did not pull out too close in front of the cyclist, they decided they were not going to wait 3 seconds until I was gone. And you are basically saying it's fine for a cyclist to be rude but not a bus driver??


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> No you get off the road you arrogant little self righteous person. I did not pull out too close in front of the cyclist, they decided they were not going to wait 3 seconds until I was gone. And you are basically saying it's fine for a cyclist to be rude but not a bus driver??



You pulled out with something like 3 seconds for the cyclist to stop? Really, you pulled out too close in front of the cyclist; a cyclist can often, usually stop in that time but your manoevre required of the other road user the completion of an emergency stop, which carries far more risk than you can decently expect others to face. 

If your attitude is that its fine to just nose out into the traffic regardless, then for everyone elses safety _get the hell off the roads_.

As for being rude, _no one_ was rude to you. Your description of what the cyclist said shows him (her?) to have been pretty considered. Then you, representing your employer in a readily identifiable company vehicle, chose to compound an unsafe manoevre with being abusive. Had someone, say, in a shop done that then she'd have probably lost her job.

In short, you cannot demonstrate that the cyclist did anything wrong, yet you think its okay to be abusive and to take risks with the cyclists safety. You believe that its okay to be rude while representing your employer. You have, furthermore, contradicted yourself on various aspects of what happened when challenged, changing your story to try not to come off as badly as you otherwise are.

You're here to try to gain some absolution from cyclists (who, oddly, you believe will speak for the cyclist you were unpleasant too) for your rather poor behaviour. You deserve none.


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You pulled out with something like 3 seconds for the cyclist to stop? Really, you pulled out too close in front of the cyclist; a cyclist can often, usually stop in that time but your manoevre required of the other road user the completion of an emergency stop, which carries far more risk than you can decently expect others to face.
> 
> If your attitude is that its fine to just nose out into the traffic regardless, then for everyone elses safety _get the hell off the roads_.
> 
> ...



You were not there and are just making presumtions based on your own biased opinion. I was already pulling away when the cyclist tried to overtake, they could have stayed behind me and not had a problem. But instead they chose to create a problem and then be rude and sarcastic about it.
You seem to have a very pompus, I'm always right everyone else is wrong sort of attitude. I bet you are the sort of person who walks blindly onto a zebra crossing and expect traffic to immediately stop for you because you are on the crossing! With your arrogant attitude I think it's you who needs to be off the road for the saftey and well being of everyone.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

I'm with Neth on this one.

Although I may have only appeared to be 'trolling' on this thread, I believe I have had a few points worth noting.

The fact that the original point of this thread has been ruminated to the point of dessication, degeneration and then held aloft as a concrete example is very sad indeed.

I will repeat, as I warned in an earlier post;

'Medieval, as I said before.

Brock, what a truly facile comment.

Had this bus driver been a man I feel you'd be offering a stout hearty handshake, a pint and you'd all be off to see the morris dancing, quicker than you can say 'Wassail!'.

Let Nethalus take her view of this thread, and some of it's contributors, back to 'Bloodbath Busses', or whatever the forum is called, and see what good it does.

I believe I can already hear the laugher in every Bus Station canteen across the land.

My humble opinion,

T x'

This has become a wildly unbalanced argument and instead of ingraciating yourselves you've done absolutely nothing to further the cause of the cyclist and only compounded the view of a Bus driver who may have had a chance to see things from our angle.

Sadly,

T x

P.S. Brock, If a bus driver on a bus forum offered to drag you from your bike and spank you, I doubt you would see that as amusing.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> You were not there and are just making presumtions based on your own biased opinion.



No, I'm drawing conclusions based on what you've actually said, and further on the constantly changing view of what happened that you're giving us. For example:



> I was already pulling away when the cyclist tried to overtake, they could have stayed behind me and not had a problem. But instead they chose to create a problem and then be rude and sarcastic about it.



Right, so the cyclist started going past you, yet you say that the cyclist would have lost three seconds while your very slow to accelerate banger of a bus got out onto the road... Doesn't add up at all, either the cyclist was part past you or had moved out into a position to come past you (in which case you don't move into the main traffic, _period_) or the cyclist is up alongside as you're nearly off and you _definitely_ shouldn't be pulling out. I cannot construct any sequence of events in which you're not in the wrong; its up to the person in the traffic to decide whether to let you out, its their call as to whether thats safe or not, _is is not your decision to make, its the other guy makes that call_. 



> You seem to have a very pompus, I'm always right everyone else is wrong sort of attitude. I bet you are the sort of person who walks blindly onto a zebra crossing and expect traffic to immediately stop for you because you are on the crossing! With your arrogant attitude I think it's you who needs to be off the road for the saftey and well being of everyone.




And now you fall back on to abuse. Like you did on the road when you were found wanting. Like you always do whenever it is demonstrated to you that you're in the wrong. You're coming across as a fairly nasty piece of work here; you _could_ have asked whether you were in the wrong or not and meant it as a real question, but that wasn't your intention. Your goal here was to be told you didn't do wrong when, quite clearly, that wasn't the case.

Want your guilty conscience soothed? Go back to Bloodbus where your anti-cycling attitudes fit in better.


----------



## magnatom (17 Dec 2007)

Guys! Chill out a bit. 

Cab, nethalus is at least making an effort here, so give her a brake. We all know that you are good at finding little holes in peoples arguments, but does that really take us forward? Does it really matter how far her window was down? 

Yes nethalus shouldn't have gave a two fingered sign, but she did and she feels guilty about it. I have given my fair share of rude signs to other road users (a lot worse than two fingers!!) and sometimes I regret it. I don't however, think this makes me a bad person, just someone who needs to learn to hold back (and I am better now).

Cab, I respect your views and your advice on road safety is usually spot on, however, you do go on your high horse sometimes!!


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

High Horse!?
It's a bl**dy Giraffe in platform shoes!!

T x


----------



## Tynan (17 Dec 2007)

dear god

this was 50:50 at best for me and never worth more than a giggle

cab speaks for cab, no-one else bus driver, don't get any idea that he's anyone else's spokesperson


----------



## magnatom (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> High Horse!?
> It's a bl**dy Giraffe in platform shoes!!
> 
> T x




Call me diplomatic......


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

Oooh Mag,

You're sooo diplomatic! 
Glad to hear the velo is back and tip top!

T x


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

Just to clarify, I'm not anti cyclist, ok I might have been at one time, before any nit pickers point out that I once said "Cyclists should be banned". In fact I'm seriously thinking about getting a bike after Christmas is out the way like. Especially as I'm changing depots next year and the new depot will be easier to get to and not as far on a bike. In fact it will probably be far easier cycling than taking the car.


----------



## domd1979 (17 Dec 2007)

So am I. 

Cab - You seem completely incapable of seeing things from a bus driver's point of view (or the driver of any large vehicle), and your rantings aren't doing anybody any favours. IMO the cyclist in this particular incident was in the wrong, failed to anticipate what was happening, and failed to act accordingly. Being on a bicycle doesn't automatically make you in the right regardless of circumstance.




tdr1nka said:


> I'm with Neth on this one.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Guys! Chill out a bit.
> 
> Cab, nethalus is at least making an effort here, so give her a brake. We all know that you are good at finding little holes in peoples arguments, but does that really take us forward? Does it really matter how far her window was down?



All Nethalus is doing is seeking affirmation that she did nothing wrong. She isn't making an effort to be a good road user, she isn't making an effort to find out the views of cyclists. She's after having people tell her she didn't do wrong when _demonstrably_ she did.



> Yes nethalus shouldn't have gave a two fingered sign, but she did and she feels guilty about it. I have given my fair share of rude signs to other road users (a lot worse than two fingers!!) and sometimes I regret it. I don't however, think this makes me a bad person, just someone who needs to learn to hold back (and I am better now).



What makes her a bad road user is that she's trying to justify the first mistake, which was to pull out into road space that was occupied (or shortly to be occupied). It isn't her call to say that the cyclist must stop, to let her out, as there are many valid reasons not to do so; thats why the highway code asks you to let a bus out where you can, rather than saying that you must.

Her manoevre was dangerous, and she knows it, and we gain _nothing_ by appeasing that kind of behaviour on the roads.



> Cab, I respect your views and your advice on road safety is usually spot on, however, you do go on your high horse sometimes!!



Only when faced with some other people being oddly recalcitrant when I suggest that we call a shovel a shovel; Nethalus described a dangerous manoevre and unacceptable subsequent behaviour, and she has then changed her statement on the subject to try not to come across so badly. She wasn't interested in hearing any view of what she did other than 'its all the cyclists fault'. 

Frankly, I think that such behaviour can be roundly condemned from a dwarfish pony on its knees, no need to get right up on to a high horse.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

OK it's that time again.....

NURSE!

Tx


----------



## domtyler (17 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Frankly, I think that such behaviour can be roundly condemned from a dwarfish pony on its knees, no need to get right up on to a high horse.



Go get 'em Floyd!


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> So am I.
> 
> Cab - You seem completely incapable of seeing things from a bus driver's point of view (or the driver of any large vehicle), and your rantings aren't doing anybody any favours. IMO the cyclist in this particular incident was in the wrong, failed to anticipate what was happening, and failed to act accordingly. Being on a bicycle doesn't automatically make you in the right regardless of circumstance.



So, lets get this right...

Cyclist is going along, bus signals to move out. The cyclist has a reason for not stopping, believes it to be too dangerous to do so for whatever reason (saw signal too late, the road is frosty, theres a car right on his arse or whatever else). In your view the cyclist is now in the wrong if he doesn't stop, and the highway code is wrong because its advice is only to let a bus out in such a scenario when you can (i.e. when it is safe to do so)?

Sorry, but thats barking.


----------



## magnatom (17 Dec 2007)

Cab,

I'd argue your points, but I just don't have the energy or the time to read most of your posts when you start your rants (and this is a rant). Grab one of Jacomus' zen bubbles and convert it for internet use.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

> I make no apology for it. It didn't slow the flow of traffic.



And you didn't force anyone to make any sudden stops, or endanger anyone else in doing so. Really very different to the scenario described by Nethalus.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Cab,
> 
> I'd argue your points, but I just don't have the energy or the time to read most of your posts when you start your rants (and this is a rant). Grab one of Jacomus' zen bubbles and convert it for internet use.



Sorry Mag, you're a good bloke but thats a cop-out. The situation is really very, very simple; bus pulls out into the path of a cyclist who has not slowed to allow the bus out, the bus driver is in the wrong. Granted, the bus driver can then stop, allow the bike to go, wave a hand in apology, and thats the kind of thing you'd hope to see. The cyclist should understand that people make mistakes and let it be. But that didn't happen, the bus driver followed up a bad call with bad behaviour. 

I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of events, unless we're prepared to say that a bus can validly pull out into traffic regardless of whether or not it is safe to do so.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> And you didn't force anyone to make any sudden stops, or endanger anyone else in doing so. Really very different to the scenario described by Nethalus.



You must be a paleontologist Cab, no-one else could or would assume and extrapolate so much from so little information.

And by the way, you and your keeling pony appear to be standing on chair........

T x


----------



## gambatte (17 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> And you didn't force anyone to make any sudden stops, or endanger anyone else in doing so. Really very different to the scenario described by Nethalus.



Doesn't sound like Nethalus did either of those 2 things Cab


----------



## gambatte (17 Dec 2007)

Looking at that stop I'd argue whether the bus actually pulls out into traffic, looks like every other bit of traffic has to carry out an overtaking manouvre to pass.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> You must be a paleontologist Cab, no-one else could or would assume and extrapolate so much from so little information.



I'm _fairly_ sure that he'd have told us if anyone had had to suddenly stop or if the whole of the traffic ground to a halt. 



> And by the way, you and your keeling pony appear to be standing on chair........



On the contrary, you could spit on Nethalus's argument from the back of an earwig.


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> You must be a paleontologist Cab, no-one else could or would assume and extrapolate so much from so little information.
> 
> And by the way, you and your keeling pony appear to be standing on chair........
> 
> T x



I was thinking that myself. Like in an earlier post he suggested the road was frosty! I never said that, the incident happened a while ago and the road was dry and the day fairly warm. Also there were no cars, as like I'd said previously they had stopped at the traffic lights so I didn't force my way into traffic. The only other vehicle was the cyclist like.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> Doesn't sound like Nethalus did either of those 2 things Cab



Would be easy for Nethalus to comment on that, but I note that despite being directly addressed on such issues several times she hasn't done so. Has changed other aspects of her story, though.


----------



## domtyler (17 Dec 2007)

Come on Cab, you've had your fun, now don't be a plonker and apologise to Nethalus.


----------



## magnatom (17 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Sorry Mag, you're a good bloke but thats a cop-out. The situation is really very, very simple; bus pulls out into the path of a cyclist who has not slowed to allow the bus out, the bus driver is in the wrong. Granted, the bus driver can then stop, allow the bike to go, wave a hand in apology, and thats the kind of thing you'd hope to see. The cyclist should understand that people make mistakes and let it be. But that didn't happen, the bus driver followed up a bad call with bad behaviour.
> 
> I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of events, unless we're prepared to say that a bus can validly pull out into traffic regardless of whether or not it is safe to do so.



No it's not. It is a reaction to the form of your posts. They are way too long and you nit pick at the smallest of details (was a window fully open or partially open, who cares!!). 

My summary would be this, nethalus may have pulled out and endangered the cyclist and got annoyed just because thats what some drivers do. Equally the cyclist may have done something stupid, and caused nethalus a fright which she reacted to. Yes wrong reaction but hardly a terrible crime. The only source of information we have is nethalus herself. She is the only available witness. Witnesses are notoriously poor at remembering information correctly, so there is significant uncertainty in what happened. So what point is there pouring over the detail when there are probably biased inaccuracies anyway (nethalus this is a general statement about wittinesses and not aimed specifically at you)

Therefore we should listen to what she says, chat amicably about what may or may not have happened, suggest what she could do in the future and thank her for bothering to spend the time chatting about it.

What we should not do is witch hunt, nit pick, make assumptions, and question the motives of someone who is obviously trying to improve her driving. 

Nethalus has changed her opinion of cyclists over the last few months and it would appear is considering taking up cycling. Is that not a result? It is likely if she does this that she will improve her understanding of cyclist issue and will probably become a better driver for it. 


Taking all of this in mind, what purpose does your continued arguing with nethalus now serve?

Give it a break mate!! 

(I am sorry that this post is now of cab proportions, please feel free to read or ignore what you wish!! )


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> I was thinking that myself. Like in an earlier post he suggested the road was frosty!



I didn't suggest that at all, I said that a frosty (or slippery) road is a perfectly valid reason why you wouldn't necessarily stop and let a bus out; in such conditions you would require more notice.



> I never said that, the incident happened a while ago and the road was dry and the day fairly warm. Also there were no cars, as like I'd said previously they had stopped at the traffic lights so I didn't force my way into traffic. The only other vehicle was the cyclist like.



The cyclist _is_ traffic. You forced your way in to the traffic.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

I'm beginnig to wonder if Cab cycles like he argues a dead point.
So now you'd spit @ Nethalus would you? Sorry, I extrapolated this from your previous posting.........

Cab, you are doing the cause of the urban cyclist an utter disservice by continuing on in this manner.
In fact I'm starting to think you are an undercover militant Bus driver out to stir unrest.

T x


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> No it's not. It is a reaction to the form of your posts. They are way too long and you nit pick at the smallest of details (was a window fully open or partially open, who cares!!).



Its when a story starts changing like that you can tell that the teller is holding back. I didn't care whether the window was open or not, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the fact that Nethalus has changed her story here means that we've still not heard the real truth.



> My summary would be this, nethalus may have pulled out and endangered the cyclist and got annoyed just because thats what some drivers do. Equally the cyclist may have done something stupid, and caused nethalus a fright which she reacted to. Yes wrong reaction but hardly a terrible crime.



Thus far I agree enturely. I'd also add that because there was a perfectly valid, reasonable, legal route by which the cyclist could have been there the fact that the cyclist may have done something stupid is irrelevent; if a cyclist can be there then you have to look out. Nethalis missed the cyclist, pulled out, endangered the cyclist, yet she doesn't accept that in this manoevre she did anything wrong. She does accept that her subsequent response was wrong but, frankly, compared to the initial mistake thats peanuts. 

I don't care if people make mistakes on the road; heck, I've made my fair share, admitted them here and been lambasted/praised in fairly equal measure for that. What matters is that you accept your error and learn from it, and Nethalus has resoundingly failed to do so.



> The only source of information we have is nethalus herself. She is the only available witness. Witnesses are notoriously poor at remembering information correctly, so there is significant uncertainty in what happened. So what point is there pouring over the detail when there are probably biased inaccuracies anyway (nethalus this is a general statement about wittinesses and not aimed specifically at you)
> 
> Therefore we should listen to what she says, chat amicably about what may or may not have happened, suggest what she could do in the future and thank her for bothering to spend the time chatting about it.



Yet I come back to the same position from that; there isn't, from the description put forward by Nethalus, any way of looking at this other than a bus pulling out into road space that the bike was occupying/entering. Thats the error, thats the dangerous part, and thats the part that Nethalus has been utterly recalitrant on. She's in the wrong there, thats the mistake, and she doesn't accept that.



> What we should not do is witch hunt, nit pick, make assumptions, and question the motives of someone who is obviously trying to improve her driving.



She isn't doing that though. She is seeking absolution for having endangered a cyclist without accepting that she has even done so. All I would have required to say 'fair play' was for her to say 'I made a mistake in pulling out, I shouldn't have done so, I'll look out in future'. Yet when challenged on that point... nothing.



> Nethalus has changed her opinion of cyclists over the last few months and it would appear is considering taking up cycling. Is that not a result? It is likely if she does this that she will improve her understanding of cyclist issue and will probably become a better driver for it.
> 
> 
> Taking all of this in mind, what purpose does your continued arguing with nethalus now serve?



The basic, most important issue is acceptance of error; if we don't stand up against people not accepting error where they've endangered cyclists then, frankly, why are we discussing the topic at all?


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Cab, you are doing the cause of the urban cyclist an utter disservice by continuing on in this manner.



On the contrary, those who would seek to leave unchallenged the notion that a bus pulling out in front of a bike is okay are the ones doing us all a disservice.



> In fact I'm starting to think you are an undercover militant Bus driver out to stir unrest.



Secretly trying to bring down the cyclists from the inside, eh? Cunning. Almost too cunning


----------



## magnatom (17 Dec 2007)

Cab,

In non-forum world (real world) has anyone ever accused you of always wanting to get the last word in? Don't know why I think that might be the case......

I'm out of this one. Tell me it's a cop out if you like, but I have more important things to think about like, 'why do some people prefer eating green bananas? Surely everyone agrees that ripe yellow, going spotty bananas are better.....'


Good day.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

Cab,

Please remember the point is Nethalus might have 'possibly' endangered a cyclist. Not that she certainly did or does so on a daily basis.

Also remember your manners as it was Nethalus who started this thread in order to try and see the incident from other angles, which in my mind is commendable.

Your ranting and attention to supposed and imaginary detail is exactly like that of a London Cab driver, billigerant, unyealding, petty and in overall tone blinkered, if not completely blind. 

I do not hear you as a true representative voice for me or other cyclists, unless you were the cyclist in this situation, which of course, and please God strike me down for having to point this one out, you were not the cyclist in this situation.

We have to share the road Cab, unfortunately it's not ours to dictate and manipulate road law to meet the ends of our argument.
To blithly carry on in your manner is an incitement to all motorists to never give a toss about cyclists, maybe even encourage them to spook a velo for a laugh, cos they get soooooo uptight.

T x


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Cab,
> 
> In non-forum world (real world) has anyone ever accused you of always wanting to get the last word in? Don't know why I think that might be the case......



Nope. But in a non-forum world people tend not to gullible as to believe, at face value, the kind of thing they believe in a place like this. Or, in other words, were Nethalus to tell us that she pulled out in front of a cyclist in real life then she wouldn't get away with leaving that point undefended, you or nearly anyone else in discussion here would point out her error. 



> I'm out of this one. Tell me it's a cop out if you like, but I have more important things to think about like, 'why do some people prefer eating green bananas? Surely everyone agrees that ripe yellow, going spotty bananas are better.....'



There I agree, as long as the banana is shy of actually going runny, its better than a green one!


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Cab,
> 
> Please remember the point is Nethalus might have 'possibly' endangered a cyclist. Not that she certainly did or does so on a daily basis.
> 
> Also remember your manners as it was Nethalus who started this thread in order to try and see the incident from other angles, which in my mind is commendable.



Nethalus has had the option of correcting the assertion that she endangered the cyclist. Her description (she pulled out in front of/towards the side of the cyclist) makes it sound very much like she did. When challenged on this _several times_ she hasn't said anything new on the topic. 



> Your ranting and attention to supposed and imaginary detail is exactly like that of a London Cab driver, billigerant, unyealding, petty and in overall tone blinkered, if not completely blind.
> 
> I do not hear you as a true representative voice for me or other cyclists, unless you were the cyclist in this situation, which of course, and please God strike me down for having to point this one out, you were not the cyclist in this situation.



Why should you ever presume that any one cyclist is speaking for any other cyclist? Good grief, do we now have a 'party line'?



> We have to share the road Cab, unfortunately it's not ours to dictate and manipulate road law to meet the ends of our argument.



And that is _precisely_ the point I was making. Nethalus claimed road space that a bike was already in or was in the process of entering, and it was up to that cyclist, there and then, to decide whether or not it was appropriate to allow someone to pull into it. Nethalus took that choice from the cyclist, which is dangerous, illegal and inconsiderate, and compounded that with a rude gesture. 

Do you condone that behaviour? Is it okay to pull out into the path of a bike, or where a bike already is?



> To blithly carry on in your manner is an incitement to all motorists to never give a toss about cyclists, maybe even encourage them to spook a velo for a laugh, cos they get soooooo uptight.
> 
> T x



So your approach is to condone silly, inconsiderate motoring because pointing out where people have made mistakes but are too stubborn to admit it might wind them up a bit?


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

Bus Drivers and Cyclists of the Jury, may I now present my summing up.

My approach to it all, and to make this crystal clear on thread or on the road, is that I always allow for a certain amount of genuine error on the part of fellow road users. Period.

If this were not the case I'm sure that cyclists like myself would be in jail on repeated counts of criminal damage to cars.

I myself have physically picked up and thrown my MTB hard at a range rover and driver who had been visibly enjoying a cat and mouse, force me off the road type intimidation game in London, inspite of all my rights of way.

It was irresponsable and rash of me to react like this but I was incandescent with rage and upset at my life being threatened. We've all had this feeling I'm sure. 

I simply find in practice that when pointing out in a patronising, lengthy and protracted manner where people have made their mistakes, drivers don't get wound up a bit, they lose patience and get wound up 'one f*ck of a lot', at this point you might as well have been typing away on a pineapple for all rhetoric was worth.

It is one thing to open someones ears to the truth, but if in the, lets be frank here, 'hammering home' of opinions you make them closed again what on earth have you achieved?
You have merely compounded some of the worst aspects of a persons view of cyclists, of which I am one. Thank you very much.

Speaking of stubborn Cab, I notice you and your kneeling Neddy are still stood there on the back of that earwig looking at the windmills.
Happy tilting!

T x


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Bus Drivers and Cyclists of the Jury, may I now present my summing up.
> 
> My approach to it all, and to make this crystal clear on thread or on the road, is that I always allow for a certain amount of genuine error on the part of fellow road users. Period.
> 
> ...


Thank you tdr1nka, like I say, in my mind, to others who are kindly to me on the road, may you be blessed a 1000X's with all the nice and pleasant things.
I wonder you know if cab is racist against bus drivers?


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

And many thanks to you in return Nethalus,

I'm getting the horrible sneaky feeling Cab may have somehow horribly or embarassingly failed a PSV test in the past..........................
He's not racist he's just an elevated strain of driverist, there is a little of that in all of us.

Bless you and all your fares,

T x


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> It was irresponsable and rash of me to react like this but I was incandescent with rage and upset at my life being threatened. We've all had this feeling I'm sure.



You did wrong, you know you did wrong, doesn't make it okay but you've learned and moved on (I hope). I wouldn't particularly ask for more.

Nethalus hadsn't learned, she hasn't learned on, she still thinks her manoevre was okay. We shouldn't reinforce that message.


----------



## col (17 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> I didn't suggest that at all, I said that a frosty (or slippery) road is a perfectly valid reason why you wouldn't necessarily stop and let a bus out; in such conditions you would require more notice.
> 
> 
> 
> The cyclist _is_ traffic. You forced your way in to the traffic.




The cyclist wasnt there when she pulled away?I dare say she wouldnt have pulled away if it was passing her.


----------



## Brock (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> I'm with Neth on this one.
> P.S. Brock, If a bus driver on a bus forum offered to drag you from your bike and spank you, I doubt you would see that as amusing.






Cab IS right though. The only slightly worrying thing here is not so much Nethalus' driving in the described incident, we all make mistakes, but her lack of understanding or acceptance that it was technically wrong. It probably doesn't matter much, but it might just be an indication that there are other more serious gaps in her understanding of the road.

I could try and make another quip about suitable punishment for such a minor matter but I'm worried tdr1inka might have a tantrum.


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Cab IS right though. The only slightly worrying thing here is not so much Nethalus' driving in the described incident, we all make mistakes, but her lack of understanding or acceptance that it was technically wrong. It probably doesn't matter much, but it might just be an indication that there are other more serious gaps in her understanding of the road.
> 
> I could try and make another quip about suitable punishment for such a minor matter but I'm worried tdr1inka might have a tantrum.




Spanking eh


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You did wrong, you know you did wrong, doesn't make it okay but you've learned and moved on (I hope). I wouldn't particularly ask for more.
> 
> Nethalus hadsn't learned, she hasn't learned on, she still thinks her manoevre was okay. We shouldn't reinforce that message.



Blimey he's really got it in for bus drivers ain't he!


----------



## domd1979 (17 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> but her lack of understanding or acceptance that it was technically wrong.



And the cyclist might not have been technically wrong?




> but it might just be an indication that there are other more serious gaps in her understanding of the road.



There's sod all grounds to make that deduction.


----------



## domd1979 (17 Dec 2007)

What ever gives you that impression...... 




nethalus said:


> Blimey he's really got it in for bus drivers ain't he!


----------



## col (17 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Cab IS right though. The only slightly worrying thing here is not so much Nethalus' driving in the described incident, we all make mistakes, but her lack of understanding or acceptance that it was technically wrong. It probably doesn't matter much, but it might just be an indication that there are other more serious gaps in her understanding of the road.
> 
> I could try and make another quip about suitable punishment for such a minor matter but I'm worried tdr1inka might have a tantrum.





Lack of understanding for being technically wrong? How so?

It sounds to me like the inadvertant insults are starting to come now?


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

Lets see I passed my car theory test 35/35 correct and then my car practical test. I then had to do a test on the highway code during my interview at the bus company, which I got 20/20 on. I then had to do a PCV thoery test, again 35/35. Also had to do a Hazard Perception test, got 69% on that the highest in my group. I then had to do a PCV practical test which I passed. And Cab is saying I don't know nowt about driving and road saftey!!!


----------



## col (17 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Lets see I passed my car theory test 35/35 correct and then my car practical test. I then had to do a test on the highway code during my interview at the bus company, which I got 20/20 on. I then had to do a PCV thoery test, again 35/35. Also had to do a Hazard Perception test, got 69% on that the highest in my group. I then had to do a PCV practical test which I passed. And Cab is saying I don't know nowt about driving and road saftey!!!



Thats impressive,the perception test is very impressive,the highest ever at my training centre was 74%,no one to date has come near it.
I passed with 66%,And have had no accidents of my making yet,in all the years iv been driving.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

Brock, 
We will happily leave you to your private fantasies.
To openly suggest dragging a female bus driver from her bus to spank her is proposition of an agressive act.

You say the Bus Driver was agressive, so you do it back from the safety of your computer, maybe in jest but, sorry Mate, you sound like nasty little boys full of E numbers and all wound up over someone elses fight.

As yet the only bits of my postings you appear to have noticed are when I have, a/ suggested you might be misguided or b/ I have made a minor spelling mistake.

You boys is just plain old fashioned Bonkers!

T x


----------



## Brock (17 Dec 2007)

I did read all your postings. Even when you weirdly posted one again.
And you're still spelling optimist wrong in your sig 

Nethalus seems to have taken the spanking comment in the lighthearted context it was intended, I'm sorry it upset you. I made it purely in an attempt to lighten the mood of the discussion because I think it's clear to all of us that Nethalus is certainly one of the more caring bus drivers. I honestly don't think there's any danger of a violent paddling being carried out in response to my call for a S&M style jihad.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

Fair call Brock,

My point still is, and you're very lucky that Nethalus didn't take offence, calls of sexism, and possibly threatening behaviour are too easily raised these days and would have done nothing to help the argument.
As Jihads go I've heard of worse.

T x
Dang, I can't believe I spelt optimist wrong, twice.


----------



## Brock (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> ....calls of sexism, and possibly threatening behaviour are too easily raised these days and would have done nothing to help the argument.



You're right, they didn't.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

I should blush.

T x


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Fair call Brock,
> 
> My point still is, and you're very lucky that Nethalus didn't take offence, calls of sexism, and possibly threatening behaviour are too easily raised these days and would have done nothing to help the argument.
> As Jihads go I've heard of worse.
> ...



Never taken offence like. Once nearly took out some railings when I was a newbie. Got bullied by a rival bus company's bus and he tried to have me off the road.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Dec 2007)

I reckon it's about time a moderator locked this topic. It's a disaster zone.


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I reckon it's about time a moderator locked this topic. It's a disaster zone.



Not that bad is it?


----------



## BentMikey (17 Dec 2007)

You're OK, Nethalus. I'm just tired of the ranting and I can't be bothered to read all the intolerant crap that's been posted.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

A friend of mine, also a cyclist, managed on his road test to crash a single decker backwards into park railings and they had to get the fire brigade to cut the bus free! Surprisingly, he didn't pass.

T x


----------



## nethalus (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> A friend of mine, also a cyclist, managed on his road test to crash a single decker backwards into park railings and they had to get the fire brigade to cut the bus free! Surprisingly, he didn't pass.
> 
> T x



What happened to me is that the rival bus had a parked car on his side of the road. Being a naive newbie I foolishly expected him to hang back and obey that bit in the highway code that state that the onus to give way is on the person with the obstruction on their side of the road. I had no where to go so moved over towards the kerb as far as I could to make room. Unfortunately I didn't check my nearside rear and the back wheel mounted the kerb, where there was some railings. I heard this tooth jarring scraping sound so stopped. I looked out and saw that one section of the bus' skirt panel had been ragged on the railings and peeled back like a sardine can lid. It was my first week out alone and I was nearly crapping myself!!


----------



## Brock (17 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> You're OK, Nethalus. I'm just tired of the ranting and I can't be bothered to read all the intolerant crap that's been posted.



ADMIN! ADMIN!!....Mikey can't be bothered to read this thread, please lock it at once!!
Sheesh, talk about intolerance do you?


----------



## BentMikey (17 Dec 2007)

So you like to say, but it's more because there's so much nastiness and so little productive comment here.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

To be fair Brock there has been a staggering amount of unnecessary and petty verbiage on this thread, no doubt some from myself I'll wager.

Cab in particular has displayed the most lengthy, disturbingly emphatic and unreasonable rants I've seen on a message board to date.

I don't blame Mikey for not wanting to read all the 'going round in circles', pointless and judgemental postings that have made up the bulk of this thread.

T x


----------



## mickle (17 Dec 2007)

Impressive! Cab has shown that its possible to flog a dead horse from atop a high horse.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

"I looked out and saw that one section of the bus' skirt panel had been ragged on the railings and peeled back like a sardine can lid. It was my first week out alone and I was nearly crapping myself!!" Nethalus.

OUCH! And well you might cak yourself!
Bet you're glad then you didn't get given the new single decker Mercedes 'Bendy Busses', the first fleet in London had a really stupid but potentially leathal fuel line problem causing the bus to suddenly burst into flames, thankfully no one was hurt. I think they lost 3 busses in the end because of this fault.
Quite by chance I saw one being transported on a low loader and there was nearly nothing left but the chassis, nothing more sad than a dead bus.

T x


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

Come now Mickle,

Have you not been following?

Cab regally sits atop a kneeling pony on the back of an earwig from which point of vantage he spits on bus drivers.

Pay attention 

T x


----------



## mickle (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Come now Mickle,
> 
> Have you not been following?
> 
> ...



Is the pony dead or what?


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

How on earth do you expect Cab to get dead pony to kneel on the back of an earwig in order to spit on bus drivers?

You silly man.

T x


----------



## mickle (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> How on earth do you expect Cab to get dead pony to kneel on the back of an earwig in order to spit on bus drivers?
> 
> You silly man.
> 
> T x



Sorry. I dread to ask now but where is the giraffe in high heels in this scenario?


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> And Cab is saying I don't know nowt about driving and road saftey!!!



You don't. You believe its okay to pull out in to road space occupied by a bicycle, a manoevre that is illegal and dangerous.

You've had ample opportunity to address that point directly, you've failed to do so. 

Really, get off the roads, because if thats your attitude you are a menace.


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Cab in particular has displayed the most lengthy, disturbingly emphatic and unreasonable rants I've seen on a message board to date.



Really, thats just drivel; I've demolished the position put forward by Nethalus and neither she nor anyone else has put forward any meaningful defense of it. If you don't like that then post something constructive in response, stop complaining about the content of a well reasoned argument and give _reasons_ for disagreeing.


----------



## mickle (17 Dec 2007)

He ave got sum staminer mind inee?


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

Go on then, someone, _anyone_, make a case for pulling out into the space a bike is in/is imminently about to enter from a legal road position. Make a case where the person pulling out into that space is correct to do so. Or make a case that where the person pulling out, on realising their error, continues to do so and then gives the cyclist a hard time over it. Make a case for that person not having made a mistake. Make a case for that person, on reflection, not accepting that they were in error.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

Cab,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, for pitys sake shut up and leave the nice lady bus driver alone now!

Fuggit. And I'd just started to have a little fun as well, admittedly at your expence, sorry.

Mickle, the Giraffe in platforms reference was in response to Cab being described as being on his high horse. Cab insisted on bringing along a kneeling pony from which to spout and it all kinda went downhill from there really, earwigs and spitting, no end of fun has been had.

Cab may I say how much I truely admire your zeal in the department of exacting honourable truths from spurious details, have you ever thought of becoming an MP?

T x


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Cab,
> 
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, for pitys sake shut up and leave the nice lady bus driver alone now!



She asked for opinions, I've given them to her, she's well able to defend her position against that if she chooses to do so. She has chosen not to do so, and I suggest thats because she knows she was in the wrong.
I've reasoned, not abused. Leave her alone? Heck, I've said and done nothing to apologise for.



> Fuggit. And I'd just started to have a little fun as well, admittedly at your expence, sorry.



You'll appreciate that after your posts here directed at me, I genuinely don't give a flying fig for whether you care for the tone or content of my posts. In any way.


----------



## mickle (17 Dec 2007)

Ooooooh! Handbags!


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Dec 2007)

She asked for opinions one presumes she ment the plural and not the same one over and over and over and over and over and over et al, R.I.P, etc.

As my posts have been directed at you I shall delight in keeping the flying fig for myself, ta!

Cab I don't expect you to pay attention to my posts as you have systematically failed to notice postings by other members telling you to calm down.

T x


----------



## Cab (17 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> She asked for opinions one presumes she ment the plural and not the same one over and over and over and over and over and over et al, R.I.P, etc.



The way to stop a question coming back is to answer it. Its that simple. And because it'll probably annoy you, I'll apologise in advance for repeating this challenge, word for word:

Go on then, someone, anyone, make a case for pulling out into the space a bike is in/is imminently about to enter from a legal road position. Make a case where the person pulling out into that space is correct to do so. Or make a case that where the person pulling out, on realising their error, continues to do so and then gives the cyclist a hard time over it. Make a case for that person not having made a mistake. Make a case for that person, on reflection, not accepting that they were in error.



> As my posts have been directed at you I shall delight in keeping the flying fig for myself, ta!
> 
> Cab I don't expect you to pay attention to my posts as you have systematically failed to notice postings by other members telling you to calm down.



I'm perfectly calm, thank you. Don't ever assume otherwise.

The position put forward here by Nethalus is indefensible. Its not a rational, reasonable stance. You've been taken in by it though; fair enough, but that would seem to require being oddly gullible. Do you disagree? Fine. Why, though? Why is it that you think her behaviour, namely pulling straight out into occupied road space in a way that caused alarm/danger to a cyclist, was okay?


----------



## mickle (18 Dec 2007)

oooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo! Get her!


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

Calm, hmmmm? 
It's more like cold and unyealding from where I'm sitting.

To finally assert my feelings on the subject as I see it;
The cyclist was most probably at fault as busses do generally have the right of way.

Above knowing why or how the cyclist came to be level with the back wheel of the bus(which is in the first quater of a bus length and I would see as a reckless position from which to overtake any vehicle)we have only supposition in order to make further opinion, this is a luxury I feel you have abused.
And why not, it makes for great conjecture and good old fashioned doggerel!

Hand me my mead my man for I'm off to rebuke them curs in the pillory!!

T x


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Dec 2007)

Starting to overtake an indicating bus is ridiculous behavior, especially from a cyclist. Think what your position would be if a car driver was to come on here and say "I was going too fast to slow down in time to allow the bus to pull out (as per Highway Code rule whatever-it-is)".


----------



## Brock (18 Dec 2007)

Do I really need to point out again that we should be discussing the driver's behavior upon noticing the cyclist? It doesn't really matter if the cyclist parachuted in from a passing stealth bomber. Just because the cyclist presumably didn't take a visible line previous to starting an overtaking maneuver (presumably because she came from the side road a few yards behind the bus stop) doesn't mean the driver has any right to drive badly once she's noticed the cyclist.

I am NOT defending the cyclist, nor am I condemning them, they aren't here to defend themselves and Nethalus asked about her own conduct.

Is it foolish to pass an indicating bus? That's my decision when I'm in the position. I did just that twice at the weekend, the bus driver correctly waited for me to pass on both occasions. I would not expect a driver to notice me overtaking and then accelerate off, effectively undertaking me.

*Cab IS right*, except the irrational stuff about how Nethalus shouldn't be on the road etc.




tdr1nka said:


> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, for pitys sake shut up and leave the nice lady bus driver alone now!



Careful.. It's all too easy for people to shout sexism these days.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Calm, hmmmm?
> It's more like cold and unyealding from where I'm sitting.
> 
> To finally assert my feelings on the subject as I see it;
> The cyclist was most probably at fault as busses do generally have the right of way.



Wrong. You're not absolutely required to let a bus out, you're required to do so if it is possible. That means its your call to decide whether or not it is safe, and you've got all sorts of reasons why in any given instance you may choose not to do so.

The cyclist in this instance chose not to do so, and its his call. Thats the law. 



> Above knowing why or how the cyclist came to be level with the back wheel of the bus(which is in the first quater of a bus length and I would see as a reckless position from which to overtake any vehicle)we have only supposition in order to make further opinion, this is a luxury I feel you have abused.
> And why not, it makes for great conjecture and good old fashioned doggerel!
> 
> Hand me my mead my man for I'm off to rebuke them curs in the pillory!!
> ...



Errm, no, I've based my argument on what Nethalus actually said. Nethalus illegally and dangerously moved out into occupied road space, it doesn't matter _why_ the cyclist was there or whether the cyclist had made a mistake or not.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Starting to overtake an indicating bus is ridiculous behavior, especially from a cyclist. Think what your position would be if a car driver was to come on here and say "I was going too fast to slow down in time to allow the bus to pull out (as per Highway Code rule whatever-it-is)".



All depends really. However fast you're going, you could be cycling along at walking speed and the bus could still start indicating too close in front of you for you to be able to safely stop. If you can safely let a bus out then clearly you should, but thats your decision to make, no one elses.


----------



## gambatte (18 Dec 2007)

As I see it, the cycle wasn’t visible, the bus started to move (after doing a mirror, signal, manouvre).

The cyclist made a decision to overtake and placed themselves in a position where they could be seen.

At this point, considering the type of stop, the time it would take for a cyclist to overtake etc. nothing would have been gained by the bus stopping (note Nethalus doesn’t say she accelerated either) There was no other traffic present to form dangers to the cyclist (lights at red)

But then, we've said this before....


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> *Cab IS right*, except the irrational stuff about how Nethalus shouldn't be on the road etc.



I dunno, I guess I just feel that people who can't see that they've made a mistake that could endanger others and then deal with that reasonably have no business being in control of any vehicle. Admittedly that would mean that something like a third of all road users would be out of action...


----------



## gambatte (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Nethalus illegally and dangerously moved out into occupied road space, it doesn't matter _why_ the cyclist was there or whether the cyclist had made a mistake or not.



Nope, she said she'd carried out the M/S/M, moving forward, not out. Can't say it was illegal as theres nowhere near enough evidence of that.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> Nope, she said she'd carried out the M/S/M, moving forward, not out. Can't say it was illegal as theres nowhere near enough evidence of that.



She disn't notice the cyclist; whether she just didn't see it or whether the cyclist wasn't visible, to move out into traffic and force any other vehicle to stop or swerve suddenly is a mistake. When you've made such a mistake you've then got a choice, and unless its unsafe to do so the right choice is to let the other vehicle go before moving out. Whether or not the cyclist should have been passign the bus (his call, not the bus drivers, as to whether thats safe) its the duty of the person pulling out to do so safely or not at all.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Dec 2007)

*eyes glaze over* at yet more verbal diarrhoea


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

If you were to transpose the details of this incident to central London the cyclist would be seen as somewhere near suicidal.

If a cyclist chooses to overtake a bus that is potentially pulling out, he/she is making a dangerous choice both to enter the buses blind spot and risk not having a clear view of the road ahead in which to pull back in, in front of the bus.

As Nethalus had started indicating to pull out one can also assume that the action of the cyclist could equally be a case of sheer bloody mindedness.

T x


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> If you were to transpose the details of this incident to central London the cyclist would be seen as somewhere near suicidal.
> 
> If a cyclist chooses to overtake a bus that is potentially pulling out, he/she is making a dangerous choice both to enter the buses blind spot and risk not having a clear view of the road ahead in which to pull back in, in front of the bus.
> 
> As Nethalus had started indicating to pull out one can also assume that the action of the cyclist could equally be a case of sheer bloody mindedness.



The truth is we don't know and can't know why the cyclsit started to overtake the bus, it is clear that there are many reasons why a cyclist may choose to do so. There may be a car behind you (busses have a big blind spot, you may be aware of a vehicle there that the bus isn't), you might have a dodgy road surface, etc. You know the local conditions and the performance of your own vehicle, thats why its up to you _and not any vehicle pulling out_ to decide whether to let the them out.

But none of that really comes into the play when asking whether the _bus driver_ was wrong. You don't use the road and take positioning based on what other people are meant to do, you do so based on whats happening. What was happening here was simple; the bus driver pulled out into space that wasn't there, that wasn't safe to enter. Thats the initial mistake. You can then, when you've made an error like that, stop and let the other guy go, wave your hand in acknowledgement, or you can plough on regardless. You'll note that if someone is in the middle of overtaking you and you think they are in error, you don't try to out accelerate them, you let them go. 

So, you've got a cyclist part past a bus that shouldn't have pulled out, then the bus driver acts abusive and dangerously out-accelerates and overtaking vehicle.

Its illegal, its stupid, but still its just a mistake. I'd say fine, learn and move on, but here we have the bus driver oblivious to the fact that she's made these mistakes.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> *eyes glaze over* at yet more verbal diarrhoea



If you have nothing constructive or rational to add, please just don't.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Dec 2007)

Oh the irony...


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Oh the irony...



There are dozens of topics here on CycleChat that I'm not particularly enthralled by. My normal solution is not to read them, and not to comment on them.

I try hard not to ignore the contents and then post sniping, childish comments.


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> There are dozens of topics here on CycleChat that I'm not particularly enthralled by. My normal solution is not to read them, and not to comment on them.
> 
> I try hard not to ignore the contents and then post sniping, childish comments.



Not trying nearly hard enough methinks.

We have to agree to disagree on this one Cab, and please can you stop forcing the issue like you're trying to unblock a sink full of fat.

Until the next thread,

T x


----------



## domtyler (18 Dec 2007)

Cab, you had the argument won in your first few posts at which point most people would have stopped. Well done. What have you gained by banging on for another two hundred and fifty posts effectively repeatedly saying the same thing?

And then you wonder why people find you so mind numbingly boring!! Please just stop.


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Cab, you had the argument won in your first few posts at which point most people would have stopped. Well done. What have you gained by banging on for another two hundred and fifty posts effectively repeatedly saying the same thing?
> 
> And then you wonder why people find you so mind numbingly boring!! Please just stop.



Oooooohhhh nooooo he didn't.........

It is pantomime season after all


----------



## gambatte (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> dangerously out-accelerates and overtaking vehicle.quote]
> 
> ? missed this bit?
> Where did she say she accelerated once she'd seen the cyclist?


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> ? missed this bit?
> Where did she say she accelerated once she'd seen the cyclist?



First page:



> The cyclist shouted "Oi thanks mate" as the bus continued to move. So the bus driver opened the cab window and stuck twos up at the cyclist before accelerating away.



She's also told us about the acceleration of the bus, i.e. it was a sluggish vehicle accelerating slowly away from the stop when she spotted the bike. 

She pulled out into space that wasn't safe to move into, as evidenced by the presence of a cyclist in it, and then rather than stopping to let the bike go (aklnowledging her mistake) she continued to accelerate away, i.e. after her first mistake she out-accelerated a vehicle that was in the process of overtaking her. Which is, as you know, illegal and dangerous.


----------



## col (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> I dunno, I guess I just feel that people who can't see that they've made a mistake that could endanger others and then deal with that reasonably have no business being in control of any vehicle. Admittedly that would mean that something like a third of all road users would be out of action...





Your so full of it sometimes ,arnt you.Your making things up,then the insults ,in a roundabout sort of way.You obviously cant accept that the bike was not there when the bus started to move.It seems you do have a strong dislike to buses for some reason,i would seek help on this.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Your so full of it sometimes ,arnt you.Your making things up,then the insults ,in a roundabout sort of way.You obviously cant accept that the bike was not there when the bus started to move.It seems you do have a strong dislike to buses for some reason,i would seek help on this.



Whether the bus driver saw the bicycle or not before moving is irrelevent; the fact is that the cyclist was there so the bus driver was in error. Its that simple. If the bus driver then, on spotting that she should not have been moving out was to acknowledge that then fine. If the bus driver was then to do the safe thing and stop, then fine. What the bus driver did was continue to try to out-accelerate a bike that was half way around when she spotted the cyclist.

None of us know why the bike went past the bus, we can't know, but we do know that there _are_ valid reasons for doing so.


----------



## col (18 Dec 2007)

She pulled out into space that wasn't safe to move into


Im sure your just winding us all up now.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Im sure your just winding us all up now.



You pull in to space that makes another road user to have to brake or swerve, you're in the wrong. It isn't safe, nor is it legal. You know this to be true. Why argue otherwise?


----------



## domtyler (18 Dec 2007)

Dnftt


----------



## col (18 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Dnftt





What does this mean?

Just clicked


----------



## domtyler (18 Dec 2007)

col said:


> What does this mean?



Try Google col, you're being a lazy ****er!!


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Whether the bus driver saw the bicycle or not before moving is irrelevent; the fact is that the cyclist was there so the bus driver was in error. Its that simple. If the bus driver then, on spotting that she should not have been moving out was to acknowledge that then fine. If the bus driver was then to do the safe thing and stop, then fine. What the bus driver did was continue to try to out-accelerate a bike that was half way around when she spotted the cyclist.
> 
> None of us know why the bike went past the bus, we can't know, but we do know that there _are_ valid reasons for doing so.



(I can't believe I am being drawn back in )

You are wrong here cab!! You cannot be looking everywhere all of the time. The driver checked that it was safe to pull out at the start of the manouver and then began the to move off. Only then did the cyclist appear. 

It is possible that the driver missed the cyclist, yes. It is equally possible that the cyclist came from an unexpected angle. Doesn't matter at this stage. The driver has to react as best they determine to avoid an accident. There are numerous occasions where it is best to continue (or sometimes accelerate) out of the way to avoid an accident. It is entirely possible that this was such an occasion.

Can you Cab say that on this occasion that continuing on was not the best course of action? Can you? No you can't because you weren't there and so we will never know.

As a cyclist I have avoided collisions by accelerating away from cars who have started to pull out on me. In fact if memory serves me correctly this is suggested as an escape route in cyclecraft.

So for all you know this was the best course of action in this situation. 

Now I can't tell you what to do (your a big boy I'm sure..... oo-er) but I'd suggest dropping it. You are no longer flogging a dead horse as the horse has now decomposed and been covered by several layers of sedement. In fact I am sure it is well on its way to becoming a fossil, which future cultures will find and wonder at why a horse would have some many flogging marks on it's bones.


----------



## col (18 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Try Google col, you're being a lazy ****er!!



I edited while you sent,
And your right,im being a lazy loafer today,off work.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> (I can't believe I am being drawn back in )
> 
> You are wrong here cab!! You cannot be looking everywhere all of the time. The driver checked that it was safe to pull out at the start of the manouver and then began the to move off. Only then did the cyclist appear.



Or, in other words, there was a cyclist approaching to pass the bus and the bus driver didn't see the cyclist. Simple mistake that anyone can make because, as you say, we're not perfect, we don't have all round vision especially in a big vehicle. I wouldn't rush to condemn anyone for making a mistake like that, its an innocent error, but I would ask that anyone out on the roads be willing to acknowledge such a mishap, and to at the very least not compound that error.



> It is possible that the driver missed the cyclist, yes. It is equally possible that the cyclist came from an unexpected angle. Doesn't matter at this stage. The driver has to react as best they determine to avoid an accident. There are numerous occasions where it is best to continue (or sometimes accelerate) out of the way to avoid an accident. It is entirely possible that this was such an occasion.



The bus driver came out in such a way as to impede the traffic. Mistake. Genuine error, forgiveable, but you have to accept when you've made a mistake if you're going to learn from it.

According to Nethalus the cyclist continued, so the bike is now trying to overtake the bus. Presumably thats because the cyclist doesn't see where else to go, but we can't know whats happening. Now, if you check the highway code:
"168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you."

Clearly the correct course of action is to allow the other guy past; its easy to get stubborn and decide that the other bloke shouldn't be going past you so you're not going to let them, and as a _cyclist_ we can easily be tempted to do so. But make no mistake, if theres an accident caused by you accelerating to stop someone legally trying to overtake then you can't claim to be entirely without blame.

So whether or not the cyclist should have gone past the bus (we all agree that you should let a bus out where its safe and appropriate), we can say that the bus driver made two clear errors.



> Can you Cab say that on this occasion that continuing on was not the best course of action? Can you? No you can't because you weren't there and so we will never know.



So, you're overtaking a bus and it has started to pull out. You do the right thing and alert the bus driver to your presence. Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the bus to continue to pull out into the road space you're occupying? I ask because, genuinely, I can't construct any set of circumstances where such behaviour is appropriate. In this scenario it no longer matters whether the cyclist was right or not to go past the bus (might have been, might not have been), because either way you've got a bus trying to out-accelrate a bike that has started to _legally_ go past.



> As a cyclist I have avoided collisions by accelerating away from cars who have started to pull out on me. In fact if memory serves me correctly this is suggested as an escape route in cyclecraft.



Yep, as an emergency escape out accelerating trouble can help. But in an analogous situation, if you're pulling out in to traffic and make a car swerve, it isn't then appropriate to keep going to keep the car swerving outside you. If you're pulling out from a junction or a layby and you've missed a car, you don't keep accelerating out in front of it, you back off and let it go if you can. To do otherwise, as Nethalus did, is dangerous and directly against the advice in the highway code. 



> So for all you know this was the best course of action in this situation.
> 
> Now I can't tell you what to do (your a big boy I'm sure..... oo-er) but I'd suggest dropping it. You are no longer flogging a dead horse as the horse has now decomposed and been covered by several layers of sedement. In fact I am sure it is well on its way to becoming a fossil, which future cultures will find and wonder at why a horse would have some many flogging marks on it's bones.



As far as I can see, there are still a few people here who just don't get why Nethalus was in the wrong. I'd be happy to let this lie, but I'd rather let it lie when people demonstrably 'get' what happened here. It appears to me that some contributors do not.


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

> You're younger than I thought.



Well still a few years to go before I reach the big 40, but like I say it's only a few and getting fewer


----------



## domtyler (18 Dec 2007)

Can I suggest that everyone else puts Cab on their ignore list? He may get the message then.


----------



## col (18 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Can I suggest that everyone else puts Cab on their ignore list? He may get the message then.




It wouldnt be much fun thenThe word hole,and digging,springs to mind


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Can I suggest that everyone else puts Cab on their ignore list? He may get the message then.



I won't do that, cab often does have valid points to make.

Cab I cannot be bothered replying any more. Not that I couldn't refute what you are saying, believe me I could, but there is just no point. You don't listen. You make a good act of listening but you don't. You have made your mind up: cyclist good, bus driver bad. You would continue to justify this until you went blue in the face. So there is no point arguing. 

I'd tell you to chill, but you would tell me you were. Maybe you are just addicted to writing long posts. Who knows? 

I'm out of this one for good now. Anyone else coming?


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> I dunno, I guess I just feel that people who can't see that they've made a mistake that could endanger others and then deal with that reasonably have no business being in control of any vehicle. Admittedly that would mean that something like a third of all road users would be out of action...




Cab is just adding his own made up things really and then saying that I did this and I did that. He wasn't even there and is making assumptions like I pulled into the cyclist space, which I didn't as they were not there when I started rolling. Mind you he won't take a blind bit of notice of anything I say and will just carry on making up things and ranting about it. It's obvious he don't like me and and wants to make it sound like I'm a nasty horrible bus driver. Oh well that's his opinion and there's nowt I can do to change it.
Anyway since that event happened, and it was a while ago now, I can say that other meetings with cyclists have been a lot happier situations, where we have waved thanks at each other and shown each other respect. The only bad thing that happened was when we had some serious wind a few weeks back. Had a cyclist in front of me who was being seriously buffeted about. I was staying behind him because I wanted to turn left at an up comming junction. A woman in a car wanted to turn right out of the junction. She sees my bus, but she somehow misses the hiviz, day-glow lycra wearing cyclist who's bike has lights for and aft. She pulled out on the poor sod making him wobble!


----------



## magnatom (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Cab is just adding his own made up things really and then saying that I did this and I did that. He wasn't even there and is making assumptions like I pulled into the cyclist space, which I didn't as they were not there when I started rolling. Mind you he won't take a blind bit of notice of anything I say and will just carry on making up things and ranting about it. It's obvious he don't like me and and wants to make it sound like I'm a nasty horrible bus driver. Oh well that's his opinion and there's nowt I can do to change it.
> Anyway since that event happened, and it was a while ago now, I can say that other meetings with cyclists have been a lot happier situations, where we have waved thanks at each other and shown each other respect. The only bad thing that happened was when we had some serious wind a few weeks back. Had a cyclist in front of me who was being seriously buffeted about. I was staying behind him because I wanted to turn left at an up comming junction. A woman in a car wanted to turn right out of the junction. She sees my bus, but she somehow misses the hiviz, day-glow lycra wearing cyclist who's bike has lights for and aft. She pulled out on the poor sod making him wobble!




Nethalus,

It isn't personal. Cab just goes off on these little tirades every once in a while. It's not just you.

As for the cyclist in front of you..... that's outrageous. Don't you realise that by being in the same country as him you contributed to this incident. Shame on you....


(oops I added more to the thread! But I was replying to nethalus honest!!)


----------



## BentMikey (18 Dec 2007)

Let's be fair, quite a few of Cab's posts are rather good, but once in a while he gets drawn into a cycle of destructive behavior, and then you get topics like this one. Try and learn from it, Cab, if it were me I'd want someone telling me.

I'm with you Magnatom, outta here.


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

I couldn't ig Cab,

*thinks*

'Noooobody expects the Cambridge Cycling Inquisition'

I won't get to see him dig himself down the molten core of the earth!

Who bets he puts model cars on the level crossing of his train set, just to watch them crash?

T x


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

Forgive my last post, it was most unecessary. 

T x


----------



## col (18 Dec 2007)

Me too.Gone


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Nethalus,
> 
> It isn't personal. Cab just goes off on these little tirades every once in a while. It's not just you.
> 
> ...



LOL!!


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

Nethalus, thank you for your enduring sense of humour throughout these postings.

I'm off too, this thread is dead.

T x


----------



## goo_mason (18 Dec 2007)

I can't believe I just sat and read this whole thread, but in the end is was noticeable for Nethalus retaining a good sense of humour, no matter how much Cab went round and round with several embellishments along the way.

It reminded me of one of simoncc's anti-Top Gear / BBC epic rants.

My immediate opinion was "So what ?". Nethalus is only human, works in a stressful job, and got a fright when the cyclist appeared from nowhere after she'd checked and started moving. She admitted the fingers were a bit naughty, and that's that. The thread should have ended there.

And now I'm out of here like everyone else. I deserve a cup of tea as a reward for my stamina and endurance


----------



## domd1979 (18 Dec 2007)

and a large slice of cake if you've just read all 30 pages in one go!!!! 



goo_mason said:


> I deserve a cup of tea as a reward for my stamina and endurance


----------



## gambatte (18 Dec 2007)

I'm out of here as well.

Pity, 3 more posts would have got it to 300.

how about 2 more posts, then let Cab have the last word?


----------



## domtyler (18 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> I'm out of here as well.
> 
> Pity, 3 more posts would have got it to 300.
> 
> how about 2 more posts, then let Cab have the last word?



???

I think you'll find it is only two more that are needed here.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> I won't do that, cab often does have valid points to make.
> 
> Cab I cannot be bothered replying any more. Not that I couldn't refute what you are saying, believe me I could, but there is just no point. You don't listen. You make a good act of listening but you don't. You have made your mind up: cyclist good, bus driver bad. You would continue to justify this until you went blue in the face. So there is no point arguing.



Thats totally, completely untrue. I've taken your statements on board and responded to them, I've dug out supporting statements from the highway code that support what I'm saying and refute what you've said. Thats how you hold a debate, you listen and you respond. 

I'm _genuinely_ not seeing _any_ set of circumstances in which the bus driver was not in error. You clearly have some other insight here, as you're not stupid. But, for whatever reason, you haven't seen good to share that insight.



> I'd tell you to chill, but you would tell me you were. Maybe you are just addicted to writing long posts. Who knows?
> 
> I'm out of this one for good now. Anyone else coming?



*shrug* 

You seem to be assuming that I'm wound up here. I'm not. It would rather appear that several other peple are though. Thats _their_ problem.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Cab is just adding his own made up things really and then saying that I did this and I did that. He wasn't even there and is making assumptions like I pulled into the cyclist space, which I didn't as they were not there when I started rolling.



You pulled out _and continued to accelerate_ into space that the cyclist was about to enter and then was actually in. The highway code _specifically_ states that when someone is overtaking you, you don't accelerate. You accelerated as the cyclist was going past you on the outside (you've said precisely that). There is no other conclusion to draw than that, for some reason, you don't believe that the highway code applies here.



> Mind you he won't take a blind bit of notice of anything I say and will just carry on making up things and ranting about it. It's obvious he don't like me and and wants to make it sound like I'm a nasty horrible bus driver. Oh well that's his opinion and there's nowt I can do to change it.



Actually, no, I don't like you. Not for this incident, I don't like you for the company you keep. But thats irrelevent here; the evidence we have _from your statements_ about the event show that you made an initial mistake (you didn't see the cyclist and pulled out as he was about to go past you; there was, therefore, no gap), and rather than just accepting that error you then made a rude gesture to the _polite_ cyclist, and then out-accelerated the cyclist who was now, because of your mistake, overtaking you rather than going round a stationary bus. 

But mistakes happen. All of the time. We all make mistakes. You clearly don't accept that this applies to you though; you've admitted that your rude gesture was wrong, but you can't see that your actual driving was at fault. Sadly, thats a very common response from motorists.

Sadder still is the fact that you've completely failed to engage in any discussion about what happened; you've made a set of (at times conflicting) statements, then got all shirty when questioned, and when it was put to you that your behaviour was bad. You're a bad example to all other road users.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Nethalus,
> 
> It isn't personal. Cab just goes off on these little tirades every once in a while. It's not just you.



Frankly, you should know better than that. This is no tirade, its no rant, its a reasoned stance based on what Nethalus has said. 

Basically, she's in the wrong, she _knows_ that she made several mistakes, and she wanted to achieve some kind of absolution from a bunch of cyclists for having endangered a cyclist on the road. 

To be honest, I think its irresponsible for other cyclists here to giver her that.


----------



## domtyler (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Frankly, you should know better than that. This is no tirade, its no rant, its a reasoned stance based on what Nethalus has said.
> 
> Basically, she's in the wrong, she _knows_ that she made several mistakes, and she wanted to achieve some kind of absolution from a bunch of cyclists for having endangered a cyclist on the road.
> 
> To be honest, I think its irresponsible for other cyclists here to giver her that.



Somebody up his dose of Lithium for gawds sake.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Somebody up his dose of Lithium for gawds sake.



Get over yourself; if you've nothing on subject to say why say anything?


----------



## domtyler (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Get over yourself; if you've nothing on subject to say why say anything?



I already said my bit, everything that needed to be said, i.e. very little. I am just baffled as to why you have seen the need to go on about such a trivial matter for over three hundred posts. Please just explain to me what you or anyone else has gained by this?


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> I already said my bit, everything that needed to be said, i.e. very little. I am just baffled as to why you have seen the need to go on about such a trivial matter for over three hundred posts. Please just explain to me what you or anyone else has gained by this?



What does anyone ever gain out of any kind of discussion or debate? Its an exploration of an issue, a topic, and the areas around it. Whether any individual discussion is of value, I dunno. I do know that the result is quite clear, and I've certainly learned a little about how some people here interpret (or, rather, fail to think about) whats said.


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Get over yourself; if you've nothing on subject to say why say anything?





Marvelous.


----------



## tdr1nka (18 Dec 2007)

Cab, we've tried to say this kindly and with some sensitivity but it boils down to this;
You is a Troll.
No one cares if you are right or wrong anymore. You have become a bore. A twenty four carat, grade A, tip top, put on your glad rags we're going out tonight, BORE.

Sorry, save yourself fron tendenitis and type a little less in future. Please.

T x


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Cab, we've tried to say this kindly and with some sensitivity but it boils down to this;
> You is a Troll.



Drivel. Really. You haven't engaged in the discussion, you haven't even _tried_ to refute the points I've put forward. I've not been insulting (despite quite some provocation), I've not been crude. I've remained on topic. 

If you want to find trolling, i.e. posts made to illicit a response, usually inflammatory or in some way insulting, look closer to home.


----------



## domtyler (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> What does anyone ever gain out of any kind of discussion or debate? Its an exploration of an issue, a topic, and the areas around it. Whether any individual discussion is of value, I dunno. I do know that the result is quite clear, and I've certainly learned a little about how some people here interpret (or, rather, fail to think about) whats said.



You see I for one have learnt an awful lot from this site and C+ before it, I guess I am not alone in that. I have only learnt that you can be a bit of an idiot on occasion from this thread though. I guess I am not alone in that either!

You have taken this thread and made it all about you. I can only guess as to the reasons you have done this.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> You see I for one have learnt an awful lot from this site and C+ before it, I guess I am not alone in that. I have only learnt that you can be a bit of an idiot on occasion from this thread though. I guess I am not alone in that either!
> 
> You have taken this thread and made it all about you. I can only guess as to the reasons you have done this.



Errrm, no, I haven't; I've posted specifically on topic, and in the last page or so others have sought to take the thread off topic. I'm happy to remain _on_ topic, because I'm pretty darn certain that I'm right.


----------



## Terminator (18 Dec 2007)

This is the same domtyler who said I was a danger to peds after three of them ran in front of me from the other side of the road and I collided with them.


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Frankly, you should know better than that. This is no tirade, its no rant, its a reasoned stance based on what Nethalus has said.
> 
> Basically, she's in the wrong, she _knows_ that she made several mistakes, and she wanted to achieve some kind of absolution from a bunch of cyclists for having endangered a cyclist on the road.
> 
> To be honest, I think its irresponsible for other cyclists here to giver her that.



Oh well at least he admitted he don't like me, well can't please 'em all can we. 
Mind you not sure if he's been spying on me or something, how does he know who I keep for company? I don't think it's very nice to judge my friends when I doubt you have ever met any of them or even know who they are like


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Oh well at least he admitted he don't like me, well can't please 'em all can we.
> Mind you not sure if he's been spying on me or something, how does he know who I keep for company? I don't think it's very nice to judge my friends when I doubt you have ever met any of them or even know who they are like



You know what I'm referring to, think back to earlier discussions here.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (18 Dec 2007)

Hi everyone!

Nethalus you're a wind-up merchant, your driving (based on your description) is at times dangerous and you have a temper and manner which is at times deplorable. You don't seem interested in cycling so you must just come here to poke the wasps nest.

Cab you are right on this occassion, I agree with the two or three statements you made about her driving and her attitude to both other road-users and to admitting responsibility for her mistakes. The manner in which you get your points across however is atrocious and less likely to gain acceptance (apart from me and Brock) than a pork pie at a Jewish buffet.

Bye everyone!


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Hi everyone!
> 
> Nethalus you're a wind-up merchant, your driving (based on your description) is at times dangerous and you have a temper and manner which is at times deplorable. You don't seem interested in cycling so you must just come here to poke the wasps nest.
> 
> ...



Oh that's nice!!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Oh that's nice!!


----------



## goo_mason (18 Dec 2007)

The season of peace, harmony and goodwill to all men has not reached the CC forums, I see.

Oops - I said I'd left this "discussion"


----------



## col (18 Dec 2007)

goo_mason said:


> The season of peace, harmony and goodwill to all men has not reached the CC forums, I see.
> 
> Oops - I said I'd left this "discussion"



Same her,but i just cant help looking in


----------



## Brock (18 Dec 2007)

Have I mentioned that Cab is right?
I'm pretty disappointed at the way he's been treated here too (even though he called me an ass recently).
If people aren't prepared to discuss the topic, especially the original poster, then move on to another thread instead of uselessly whining about it. Pathetic.


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Have I mentioned that Cab is right?
> I'm pretty disappointed at the way he's been treated here too (even though he called me an ass recently).
> If people aren't prepared to discuss the topic, especially the original poster, then move on to another thread instead of uselessly whining about it. Pathetic.




Well I would have done if cab hadn't gone of on a tangent with a load of rubbish he'd made up, but he kept spoiling the whole issue which had started off well and fair. And then he started with his arrogant suggestions about my driving. Can he drive himself? If the answer is no, he has no place to comment. If yes, is he so perfect and never done a thing wrong, never missed something in a blind spot etc? I would doubt it. He seems also to think that the cyclist was all sweet and innocent, no they were not they were rude too. 
Cab ruined this whole thread with his continued fiction based ranting. It could have ended like someone said when i admitted I shouldn't have stuck twos up and would appologise to the cyclist involved if I ever saw them again, which I doubt I ever will.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Well I would have done if cab hadn't gone of on a tangent with a load of rubbish he'd made up, but he kept spoiling the whole issue which had started off well and fair. And then he started with his arrogant suggestions about my driving. Can he drive himself? If the answer is no, he has no place to comment. If yes, is he so perfect and never done a thing wrong, never missed something in a blind spot etc? I would doubt it. He seems also to think that the cyclist was all sweet and innocent, no they were not they were rude too.
> Cab ruined this whole thread with his continued fiction based ranting. It could have ended like someone said when i admitted I shouldn't have stuck twos up and would appologise to the cyclist involved if I ever saw them again, which I doubt I ever will.




arrogant suggestions about your driving? You asked for opinions!

Can he drive himself? Who cares? It's not the topic of discussion! Ooh, I wonder if Cab likes anchovies on his pizza la la la...

no place to comment? Anyone can recognise dangerous behaviour despite not having done it themselves! And if you post a question on a forum then it's precisely the place to comment!

...perfect...? He already reminded you he's made mistakes in the past or did you not bother to read his posts? Were you too busy nodding solemnly with the others who took your side?

sweet and innocent? ha ha! RUBBISH! It's YOUR behaviour that's the topic of discussion! Remember?

Cab ruined the thread? He gave reasoned disagreements, albeit in his usual protracted and aggressive manner.

Come on, admit it, YOU ARE AT IT. Unless you genuinely can't follow a discussion that you began.

Season of peace and goodwill it certainly is and I wish you all a very merry christmas indeed. But jeezo Nethalus engage your brain before posting.


----------



## nethalus (18 Dec 2007)

That would be like me getting on an aeroplane and critising the way the pilot flew it when I know sweet FA about flying!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> That would be like me getting on an aeroplane and critising the way the pilot flew it when I know sweet FA about flying!



pff that's it, choose what you want to respond to and discount the rest! 

OK couple of questions for you:

1. Have you ever flown a commercial aircraft?
2. Do you remember 9/11?
3. If the answer to 1 is no and the answer to 2 is yes, do you feel unqualified to say whether how the plane that hit the WTC was flown that day was dangerous or not?

Or: 

1. Have you ridden in the tour de france?
2. If you saw a rider in the bunch putting a blindfold on, in the bunch sprint, would you refrain from describing that behaviour as dangerous even though the answer to 1 is no?

Or:

You are a cyclist. You cycle every day in town traffic. You are asked on a CYCLING forum for your opinion on a situation described by a bus driver, involving a cyclist. Do you:

1. give your opinion
2. keep your opinion to yourself
3. book yourself onto a crash (no pun intended) course on bus driving so that you can later justly give your opinion knowing that you are THE authority on buses and bikes and therefore fulfil all the criteria required by a forum member to respond to their posts?

Honestly, you're not for real are you? Come on, seriously.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (18 Dec 2007)

ps I think it's just us at the party now. Sorry I was late. Typical, all the good folk have left. Och well, should I just leave?


----------



## col (18 Dec 2007)

Im still trying to understand why you think she was driving dangerously,Damnit,i couldnt help but ask.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> That would be like me getting on an aeroplane and critising the way the pilot flew it when I know sweet FA about flying!



There is something in this, as it happens. Because nearly everyone can drive a car, nearly everyone assumes they can comment intelligently on the driving of much larger vehicles. Why that should be, when threads about, say, arcane points of the law are left to lawyers, solicitors and others with a knowledge of the law, I don't know.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Im still trying to understand why you think she was driving dangerously,Damnit,i couldnt help but ask.



What in particular don't you understand?

Bus pulls out into a space a cyclist is in or is imminently about to enter. Thats a mistake. If you couldn't see the cyclist its a pretty easy mistake to make, but its a mistake nonetheless.

When you make a mistake like that what matters is how you respond. The highway code is crystal clear on this, you don't pull out into traffic that is moving if doing so is going to cause another vehicle to have to suddenly swerve or stop. 

Its also very clear on what to do if you find yourself half way through an overtaking manoevre; you either maintain constant speed and direction or you slow and let the vehicle go, depending which is the safest option. What you don't do, whats actually illegal and dangerous, is to accelerate to stop the other vehicle thats half way past you from coming past. Go back to the very first post made by Nethalus, thats what she did.

No one has invented anything about what she may or may not have done, the arguments put forward are based entirely on what she said that she did. Going _solely_ on her stated actions she did three things wrong; she pulled out into moving traffic that had to swerve or stop to miss her (a bike is moving traffic, despite Nethalus asserting that there was no traffic, only a bike!), she then got shirty with the other person who was aggrieved by this error, even though that person wasn't really rude, and then she compounded this by continuing to out-accelerate a vehicle that was overtaking her.

But all of that, _all of it_ would be a 'yeah, well...' event if only she'd realise her error. What makes someone dangerous on the road isn't that you make the occasional error (everyone makes mistakes), what makes anyone dangerous on the road is not accepting that such behaviour is erroneous.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> There is something in this, as it happens. Because nearly everyone can drive a car, nearly everyone assumes they can comment intelligently on the driving of much larger vehicles. Why that should be, when threads about, say, arcane points of the law are left to lawyers, solicitors and others with a knowledge of the law, I don't know.



The only part of this that really depends on a large vehicle is whether or not Nethalus could see the cyclist. I'm sure you'll agree that a big vehicle like a bus is rather hard to see around from the drivers cab, but I hope that you'll also agree that if you've missed a bike coming up behind you the correct response isn't to get shirty with the cyclist and then try to out-accelerate him if he's already coming past you by the time you see him.


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Well I would have done if cab hadn't gone of on a tangent with a load of rubbish he'd made up,



Then it should be relativel easy for you to refute points that I've put to you based on that. Go on then...


----------



## nethalus (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Then it should be relativel easy for you to refute points that I've put to you based on that. Go on then...



Oh alright then. 
I didn't pull out into any traffic as there was none when I pulled out. Before pulling out I checked the off side mirror, see traffic is stopped at lights. Then I checked the nearside mirror to make sure no one is coming round the corner, as although it's rare for people to turn left out of that junction it's never wise to assume. You can see the junction better in the nearside mirror, that's the one nearest the pavement! Back to the offside mirror, still nothing, handbrake off start to move. Remember the mirror checks only take a few seconds and while pulling off I'm still glancing in them. A third glance at the offside mirror shows a cyclist who's seemingly appeared from no where.
If she'd been there on the first mirror check when I was not moving then I would have hung back, but she wasn't. She appeared after I had released the handbrake and started to move. So I never pulled out into any traffic, point refuted.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

She may have been hidden in the blind spot at the back of the bus, and decided to overtake when she shouldn't have.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> She may have been hidden in the blind spot at the back of the bus, and decided to overtake when she shouldn't have.



That would be my guess.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

And everyone on here should be familiar with quite how big and how far back that hidden spot at the back of a bus is!!!!!


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Oh alright then.
> I didn't pull out into any traffic as there was none when I pulled out. Before pulling out I checked the off side mirror, see traffic is stopped at lights. Then I checked the nearside mirror to make sure no one is coming round the corner, as although it's rare for people to turn left out of that junction it's never wise to assume. You can see the junction better in the nearside mirror, that's the one nearest the pavement! Back to the offside mirror, still nothing, handbrake off start to move. Remember the mirror checks only take a few seconds and while pulling off I'm still glancing in them.



So, you've looked at the road, there clearly _was_ a cyclist there, but you missed him/her. For whatever reason. Maybe the cyclist was slowly moving through your blind spot, maybe the cyclist turned around the corner and by bad luck wasn't visible in any of the mirrors you looked in when you looked at them. Freak event, happens. But nonetheless, the cyclist was there. So its your mistake, allbeit an entirely understandable mistake, a simple accident of not noticing. In itself, its probably not that big a deal, but it is important that you realise that _it was still an error_, even if it _was_ accidental. And what _really_ matters is what you do next.



> A third glance at the offside mirror shows a cyclist who's seemingly appeared from no where.
> If she'd been there on the first mirror check when I was not moving then I would have hung back, but she wasn't. She appeared after I had released the handbrake and started to move. So I never pulled out into any traffic, point refuted.



The cyclist _is_ traffic. The cyclist didn't materialise out of thin air. And once spotting that there is a vehicle overtaking you, your duty is not to try to out-accelerate it. Thats _clearly_ laid out in the highway code. You know that, don't you?

So you've missed spotting the cyclist, pulled out in front of it, the cyclist now has to manoevre (presumably quite sharply) to miss you. You then continue to accelerate to out-pace the cyclist, which is contrary to the highway code.

Inbetween the two, you were really rather rude to the cyclist _who cannot be shown to have broken any law, or to have definitely done anything wrong_. 

You made three errors. Thankfully, no one was hurt; next time, if you try to out pace someone who is already overtaking you, someone could be. Please don't do it again.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> She may have been hidden in the blind spot at the back of the bus, and decided to overtake when she shouldn't have.



Maybe. Hard really to say; we know theres another turn off on the road that the cyclist could have come out of. So it could be a case of being in a blind spot and coming out too late to be seen. Or it could be that the cyclist came out from that junction while the bus driver was looking the other way. Or it could be that Nethalus, not expecting traffic (and a cyclist _is_ traffic) to be coming from the side road, simply didn't see it. 

The point is that this first mistake, not seeing the cyclist, is quite common. It happens. The important question is what you do if you make a mistake.

The right thing to do is to simply accept it, and not make it worse. The wrong thing to do is get shirty with the other person, especially if you just can't know how much of that error was theirs. And the very worst thing to do is compound that by increasing the risk you're subjecting the other person to, i.e. in this case the bike is part overtaken the bus now, you don't go and out-accelerate the bike on the inside because its illegal and dangerous.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

And the first person to get shirty was the cyclist, not Nethalus.


----------



## nethalus (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You made three errors. Thankfully, no one was hurt; next time, if you try to out pace someone who is already overtaking you, someone could be. Please don't do it again.



Alright I promise I won't do it again.


----------



## Arch (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> And the first person to get shirty was the cyclist, not Nethalus.



Indeed, and then it seems to me that Nethalus knew she'd made a mistake reacting, and owned up, when she very easily could have not mentioned it at all. Shall we just agree to let this one go now in the name of Christmas spirit?

Christmas spirit? Thank you, I don't mind if I do, mine's a Glenmorangie...


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> And the first person to get shirty was the cyclist, not Nethalus.



What of it? 

How many of us here, when encountering a motorist doing something stupid, will respond _very_ politely to the driver in such a way as to make it clear that if the motorist is _still_ going to be in a bad mood he has to be _really_ unreasonable? Its a common tactic. And unless you've gone a lot further, it doesn't excuse the motorist then being outright rude.

Remember also, the cyclist may well have come from an entirely legal, decent road position (round the corner when the bus driver wasn't looking that way, then the bus driver signals and looks again, by which time the cyclist is now on the way around the bus and committed to going past). In such a situation you or I would also feel aggrieved if the bus moved out into our space.

But its also possible that the cyclist was being unreasonable; that _does not mean_ that the correct response from a professional driver, representing her employer, is to be really rude. Nethalus knows this, even she acknowledges that part was a mistake. Actually, I think thats by far the least serious of her three errors.

The really dangerous part was then out-accelerating a vehicle that was half way around her, i.e. the part that came next. But as, in her view (she's said this at least twice now) the cyclist _isn't_ traffic, she wasn't in error pulling out in front of it, and she wasn't in error accelerating out of the cyclist overtaking her. Out of context, just looking at Nethalus attitude to other road users, the belief that pulling out in front of another vehicle is not an error, and her opinion that contiunuing on illegally when you've done that... You don't find that a little unsettling?


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Alright I promise I won't do it again.



Good. Thank you. All I wanted to hear.


----------



## domtyler (19 Dec 2007)

Good, that's over now. Hopefully we can all get back to normal. Nethalus can go back to harassing cyclists in her bus and Cab can go back to eating road kill and growing turnips in the pannier of his Dawes.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Good, that's over now. Hopefully we can all get back to normal. Nethalus can go back to harassing cyclists in her bus and Cab can go back to eating road kill and growing turnips in the pannier of his Dawes.



Dawes?

_Dawes?_


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> What of it?



How ironic is this!!! You made something of it, and now the argument swings the other way you want to unmake the importance you originally attributed to getting shirty. That's just dishonest debating.

And as for your other point about out-accelerating, that's simply bollocks. I can think of plenty situations where having the forethought to continue with a committed move is the best approach for safety for all.

Worst of all in this whole topic, though, is how you've made such an exploding bottom out of yourself.


----------



## domd1979 (19 Dec 2007)

Nowt wrong with Dawes.



Cab said:


> Dawes?
> 
> _Dawes?_


----------



## domtyler (19 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Nowt wrong with Dawes.



The Dawes bit is historical, ask Cab if he remembers MJ ("Yor a idiot").

What the hell happened to him anyway, we need to bring him back.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Worst of all in this whole topic, though, is how you've made such an exploding bottom out of yourself.



That may be your opinion Mikey, mine is rather different.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (19 Dec 2007)

Ah, MJ of Hornsey, happy memories.

Where's Eat My Dust gone?


----------



## gambatte (19 Dec 2007)

> So whose fault did we decide that it was?



The giraffe


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

> So whose fault did we decide that it was?



Decide what was?


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> How ironic is this!!! You made something of it, and now the argument swings the other way you want to unmake the importance you originally attributed to getting shirty. That's just dishonest debating.



Errm, no. Go re-read what I've written; I've acknowledged previously that the cyclist may well have been sarcastic, but _you_ are making far too big a deal out of it. 

You seem to be forgetting that this topic is not, never has been, about whether that cyclist was in the wrong. We simply can't form a good opinion on that because we don't know why the cyclist started to go past the bus or where, precisely, the cyclist came from. If the cyclist was absolutely polite to the bus driver to the point of mild sarcasm after a the bus had pulled out in front of him (her?), then really, what of it? Its not the same as pulling out in front of another vehicle or illegally out-accelerating a vehicle thats overtaking you.

And even Nethalus, right from the outset, agreed that her rude response was inappropriate when you consider the provocation. What are you getting het up about this for?



> And as for your other point about out-accelerating, that's simply bollocks. I can think of plenty situations where having the forethought to continue with a committed move is the best approach for safety for all.



I can also think of many situations in which continuing with something you've started is the best move. Out-accelerating a vulnerable road user who has started overtaking you is not one of them.



> Worst of all in this whole topic, though, is how you've made such an exploding bottom out of yourself.



You do seem to take things _awfully_ personally.

I've put forward an argument which has now been accepted by the person I was putting it to. Would have been accepted far earlier if anyone had actually cared to discuss the points in that argument earlier.

If you don't like that, I suggest you should try to take these discussions rather less personally, maybe get to the points and discuss them more rationally.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Nowt wrong with Dawes.



Indeed, they're reliable, dependable. Lots of other words ending in 'ible'. Nothing wrong with that at all, they're very good at being what they are.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> The Dawes bit is historical, ask Cab if he remembers MJ ("Yor a idiot").



Ahh, yes. Happy memories. Being accused of being a Dawes rider because I've got an allotment. 



> What the hell happened to him anyway, we need to bring him back.



'need' is such a strong word. 'would be amused by the reappearance of' might be better.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

Now there's a question that could easily double its already lengthy length, I really should go and do some Christmas shopping though.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Taking it personally? No, and I'll bet the only reason Nethalus has agreed with your point of view is just to get you to stop posting.



Cab said:


> I can also think of many situations in which continuing with something you've started is the best move. Out-accelerating a vulnerable road user who has started overtaking you is not one of them.



So you say, but that's just adopting an inflexible attitude. It's quite easy to imagine how not stopping a bus in front of another road user with inferior brakes is quite a good idea. I think it would depend on all sorts of factors, such as how far in front the bus was. Regardless, neither of us were there, so it seems quite lacking for you to be so certain of what was right and wrong.


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Even after numerous mirror checks,and doing everything she was supposed to,you still wont give an inch on it ,will you cab?Even though the bike may be at fault here.incredible


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Taking it personally? No, and I'll bet the only reason Nethalus has agreed with your point of view is just to get you to stop posting.



You mean, you're not taking it personally, you're just intent on making lots of rather snide, rather insulting comments is because some unknown rational stance you're holding dictates that this is appropriate? I don't buy it.



> So you say, but that's just adopting an inflexible attitude. It's quite easy to imagine how not stopping a bus in front of another road user with inferior brakes is quite a good idea. I think it would depend on all sorts of factors, such as how far in front the bus was. Regardless, neither of us were there, so it seems quite lacking for you to be so certain of what was right and wrong.



The highway code is _quite clear_ on this. And, really, there isn't much scope for out-accelerating a vehicle thats pulling past you. Its a dangerous manoevre at almost any time, _and you know that to be true_. 

Look back at what Nethalus said, look back at her descriptions of what happened, and she has admitted what she did. And she knows, and has accepted, that she was in error on those things. I'm okay with that, _she's_ okay with that. You have the problem; explain why you believe it is safe to out-accelerate a vehicle that has drawn level with you, thus depriving that road user of safe space to move back in, and potentially forcing them to remain out of position for longer than they had bargained for.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Even after numerous mirror checks,and doing everything she was supposed to,you still wont give an inch on it ,will you cab?Even though the bike may be at fault here.incredible



The bike _may_ be at fault. The bus driver still made a mistake in not spotting the bike. Happens though, its a genuine, innocent mistake and not one I'd string someone up for! The serious error is in then out-accelerating a vehicle that is overtaking you; she's accepted that error now. You don't?


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> The bike _may_ be at fault. The bus driver still made a mistake in not spotting the bike. Happens though, its a genuine, innocent mistake and not one I'd string someone up for! The serious error is in then out-accelerating a vehicle that is overtaking you; she's accepted that error now. You don't?





If the cycle had been in sight and had started to pass before she pulled off,i would agree with you.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

col said:


> If the cycle had been in sight and had started to pass before she pulled off,i would agree with you.



Neither matters. She'd failed to spot the cyclist, the cyclist may or may not have been 'in sight', the truth is that the cyclist was there and she didn't see it. And then on spotting she tried to get by it by out accelerating it as it was overtaking. Against the specific advice of the highway code, dangerous, and probably illegal. I asked Nethalus not to do it again for those reasons, she's agreed, which tells me that she's not alltogether as bad as I'd first thought. 

I still don't get why this is controversial; its highway code by the book and good road craft. What don't you accept?


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Your right,sorry.


----------



## Tynan (19 Dec 2007)

'probably illegal'

why?


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> 'probably illegal'
> 
> why?




Check the highway code. Specifically:



> 168
> Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.



Of course, often doing something contrary to what is advised by the highway code isn't enough to get you arrested. But if you have good safety advice in there, and in going against it you're doing something thats actually unsafe, then it ain't unlikely that it would be adjudged to be dangerous driving. You'll most likely never get done for it, but that doesn't really change anything. Woe betide you if you do have an accident attributable to this though, it'll be used as evidence against that you were behaving dangerously. 

If someone is overtaking you, keep at your own speed. Don't accelerate. If you do that, you're increasing your own risk, risk for the overtaking vehicle, and risk for anyone on the other side of the road. 

Nethalus was pulling out by the time she saw the cyclist, she then accelerated out as the cyclist was looking to overtake. She accelerated out of an overtaking manoevre. Its dangerous, contrary to the advice in the highway code and as I hope I've now explained, probably illegal.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

You can't blame Nethalus if an overtaker chose to stay in the blind spot behind her bus. That would be the overtaker's fault, and yet you're assuming that the cyclist was in view and that Nethalus simply didn't spot her. Why can't you accept the possibility that your imagination of the possible incident might be wrong?

The bit of rule 168 you quote specifically applies to drivers. Why can't you accept that it might be safer for the bus to accelerate in this case and more quickly leave a safe space for the cyclist to go back into? Again you're making assumptions you shouldn't be.

You've failed to prove that Nethalus's actions were illegal.

Of course I accept that there are possible situations in which your assumptions might be right, but it's easy to see ones where you would be wrong. The problem is that you just want to be right, so you roundly dismiss any other possibility.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Even after numerous mirror checks,and doing everything she was supposed to,you still wont give an inch on it ,will you cab?Even though the bike may be at fault here.incredible




Yes, Cab simply can't accept being wrong, ever. Do you remember that one on C+ where he complained about riding on the pavement, and simply wouldn't accept that he'd done anything wrong?


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> You can't blame Nethalus if an overtaker chose to stay in the blind spot behind her bus.



I wouldn't...



> That would be the overtaker's fault, ...



It would...



> and yet you're assuming that the cyclist was in view and that Nethalus simply didn't spot her.



No I'm not.

Look, I'm bored with you not understanding what I'm saying, and I shan't explain again. Its there in front of you, in black and white, so if you're not going to deal with what I've actually said thats your own problem now.


----------



## domd1979 (19 Dec 2007)

Checking the mirrors properly and seeing that it is clear to pull out isn't "failed to spot". You can't expect the driver of a large vehicle to see everywhere at once. A responsible cyclist would be aware of that for their own safety - most sensible cyclists wouldn't go up the inside of an HGV, so I don't see why its seen as OK to try and overtake a bus which is moving out when you could well be in a blind spot on starting to attempt an overtake. 

It would have been obvious to the cyclist from some distance that the bus was about to pull out, or was in the process of pulling out, and it would have been extremely easy for them just to ease off pedalling slightly and let the bus out without any difficulty. I don't want a lecture on it being the "cyclists decision" either... 

If you had a proper appreciation of driving a large vehicle or had experience of it, I think you may well view the whole situation in a slightly different light - i.e. a realistic one.



Cab said:


> Neither matters. She'd failed to spot the cyclist, the cyclist may or may not have been 'in sight', the truth is that the cyclist was there and she didn't see it.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

I understand perfectly what you're saying, Cab. The problem is that your imagination is focused on one small range of possibilities, and your argument is biased towards slating Nethalus no matter what. I think you have a closed mind, and will never consider anything that doesn't support your viewpoint.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Checking the mirrors properly and seeing that it is clear to pull out isn't "failed to spot". You can't expect the driver of a large vehicle to see everywhere at once. A responsible cyclist would be aware of that for their own safety - most sensible cyclists wouldn't go up the inside of an HGV, so I don't see why its seen as OK to try and overtake a bus which is moving out when you could well be in a blind spot on starting to attempt an overtake.



All of which makes that initial error quite understandable. Bigger vehicles have a bigger blind spot, more mirrors to check that are further apart, its easy to miss something. Doesn't make it anything other than an error to pull out in front of another vehicle.

And as we don't know where the bike came from, we just can't judge whether the cyclist came out of the blind spot, or from around the corner and Nethalus just didn't see him. Both happen. 

And I haven't _ever_ said that the cyclist is without fault here. We know that cyclists make mistakes too, but we also know that there are many _valid_ reasons to go past a bus that is stopped, even if it is signalling. But as the cyclist isn't here, as we have no information to go on there, we just can't judge. Besides, no one asked us whether the cyclist was at fault, and that has no bearing on whether subsequent behaviour by the driver was any good. Or do you believe that you can do what you like to punish other road users for their mistakes?



> It would have been obvious to the cyclist from some distance that the bus was about to pull out, or was in the process of pulling out, and it would have been extremely easy for them just to ease off pedalling slightly and let the bus out without any difficulty. I don't want a lecture on it being the "cyclists decision" either...



If you don't want to hear the valid answer to a point then don't make one. Its not your call as to whether it was appropriate for that cyclist to overtake, its his. You know it, I know it, Nethalus knows it, we all know it. The cyclist could have been right, could have been wrong, but because he could have been right that decision has no further bearing on whether behaviour by Nethalus was correct or not.



> If you had a proper appreciation of driving a large vehicle or had experience of it, I think you may well view the whole situation in a slightly different light - i.e. a realistic one.



You'll find that silly assertion has been dealt with already. More to the point, if you'd read my posts you'd know that the initial error, i.e. not seeing the cyclist, was never my prime concern here. Its an understandable thing that can happen, its what you do _next_ that matters.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I understand perfectly what you're saying, Cab.



So you're intentionally constructing a straw man argument then?


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> So you're intentionally constructing a straw man argument then?



If ever there was better proof of your closed mind... No, I've provided a very plausible scenario in which Nethalus wouldn't be at fault there, well apart from the finger sign, but that's not in question. Again, because of your narrow focus, you refuse to consider the possibility.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> But as the cyclist isn't here, as we have no information to go on there, we just can't judge.



You're really rather biased, aren't you? You won't judge the cyclist, yet the bus driver comes in for some very stern judgement from you. I think you're not being at all independent or fair.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

Again, it's not the fact that Nethalus didn't see the cyclist, it's her actions after noticing the cyclist that is the major problem.

Which parts of Cab's argument do you consider an 'assumption' Mikey?

It MAY be possible that there could feasibly be some highly unusual and mitigating circumstance that would explain her driving AFTER noticing the cyclist, however it seems odd that she hasn't offered that information, and in its absence Cab's reading of the events is the only reasonable conclusion.

Cab is right. I'm getting the T-shirt.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> You're really rather biased, aren't you? You won't judge the cyclist, yet the bus driver comes in for some very stern judgement from you. I think you're not being at all independent or fair.



Oh my god.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> If ever there was better proof of your closed mind... No, I've provided a very plausible scenario in which Nethalus wouldn't be at fault there, well apart from the finger sign, but that's not in question. Again, because of your narrow focus, you refuse to consider the possibility.



Look up 'straw man'.


----------



## domd1979 (19 Dec 2007)

Its not a silly assertion at all. People's ignorance of larger vehicles - particularly their blind spots and the road space they need to manoeuvre - causes accidents, sometimes fatal. 

IMO, you're simply not prepared to see the situation from the viewpoint of the driver of a large vehicle, because it could place a different interpretation on events.



Cab said:


> You'll find that silly assertion has been dealt with already


----------



## nethalus (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Again, it's not the fact that Nethalus didn't see the cyclist, it's her actions after noticing the cyclist that is the major problem.
> 
> Which parts of Cab's argument do you consider an 'assumption' Mikey?
> 
> ...


What information? And stop picking on BentMikey.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Its not a silly assertion at all. People's ignorance of larger vehicles - particularly their blind spots and the road space they need to manoeuvre - causes accidents, sometimes fatal.
> 
> IMO, you're simply not prepared to see the situation from the viewpoint of the driver of a large vehicle, because it could place a different interpretation on events.



Errm, no... Really what part of this, from the post you were replying to, do you disagree with:

All of which makes that initial error quite understandable. Bigger vehicles have a bigger blind spot, more mirrors to check that are further apart, its easy to miss something. Doesn't make it anything other than an error to pull out in front of another vehicle.

And as we don't know where the bike came from, we just can't judge whether the cyclist came out of the blind spot, or from around the corner and Nethalus just didn't see him. Both happen.


----------



## domd1979 (19 Dec 2007)

It isn't a "major problem" at all.

The cyclist deciding not to notice a bus pulling out and act sensibly strikes me as a problem.




Brock said:


> Again, it's not the fact that Nethalus didn't see the cyclist, it's her actions after noticing the cyclist that is the major problem.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> What information? And stop picking on BentMikey.




Information like.. I don't know.. 'There was an approaching meteor that was about to hit the bus killing all the passengers so I thought it prudent to accelerate rather than waiting for the overtaking vehicle to complete its maneuver'.

And I'm not picking on Mikey, I just asked what parts of Cab's argument he considered to be assumption.


----------



## domd1979 (19 Dec 2007)

Most cyclists are quite capable of spotting a bus from a variety of angles, that a bus is starting/about to move, and to then act accordingly. They're large enough to see. 




Cab said:


> And as we don't know where the bike came from, we just can't judge whether the cyclist came out of the blind spot, or from around the corner and Nethalus just didn't see him. Both happen.


----------



## nethalus (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Information like.. I don't know.. 'There was an approaching meteor that was about to hit the bus killing all the passengers so I thought it prudent to accelerate rather than waiting for the overtaking vehicle to complete its maneuver'.
> 
> And I'm not picking on Mikey, I just asked what parts of Cab's argument he considered to be assumption.



Well sudden braking, even at slow speeds in a B7TL, can jerk passengers about.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> What information? And stop picking on BentMikey.



Its all about what happens after you see the cyclist. You know that its a mistake to accelerate if you're being overtaken to prevent someone from overtaking you (thats clear in the highway code). You know that its a mistake to pull out in front of any other vehicle thats moving (like a bike). You also know that in my view its quite likely that'll happen sometimes in a big vehicle, you can be as observant as you like but you can still miss things, such mistakes will happen, can't be helped, what matters is what you do next. I'm pretty sure we agree on that (don't we?).

There are very few circumstances that would make it okay to try to out-accelerate a vehicle thats coming past you to pull in again, which is why I asked you not to do it again, and was glad that you said that you won't. Brock is referring to some kind of situatiuon that would make that the right manoevre, because it isn't obvious that there _are_ any such curcumstances.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Most cyclists are quite capable of spotting a bus from a variety of angles, that a bus is starting/about to move, and to then act accordingly. They're large enough to see.



I agree. And..? I mean, the cyclist should see the bus, and in most situations should allow the bus out. What matters, the question under discussion, is whether what the bus driver did when the cyclist stared to come past was correct. As we have no way of knowing where the cyclist came from or why they chose to pass, we just can't reasonably make any assertions there. We know that the bus driver didn't see the cyclist until later than either of them would have liked; what matters here, what we're discussing, is what the bus driver did next.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Well sudden braking, even at slow speeds in a B7TL, can jerk passengers about.



Surely there's something between accelerating and braking hard though?


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Its all about what happens after you see the cyclist. You know that its a mistake to accelerate if you're being overtaken *to prevent someone from overtaking you* (thats clear in the highway code). You know that its a mistake to pull out in front of any other vehicle thats moving (like a bike).



The bold bit is pure assumption on your part.

Where we don't agree is whether continuing to accelerate or not is the right action. Rule 168 specifically refers to drivers overtaking, rather than cyclists. I think this is quite relevant, because motor vehicles have far more acceleration than cyclists, as well as much better braking. On this basis alone, a legal and valid option for safety would be for Nethalus to continue to accelerate and allow the cyclist to drop in behind her. Assuming that the cyclist has popped out after Nethalus committed to pulling out, I would expect that there will be little relative speed between them, and no easy way for the cyclist to continue to overtake unless Nethalus braked hard. That's not good for her passengers, and it's very likely not good for the cyclist either, who can't stop as quickly as the bus. It's also a good option because the cyclist can't accelerate well relative to the bus.

I know that if an overtake I'm making goes wrong for whatever reason whilst I'm alongside, I want to maximise the relative speed between the vehicle I'm overtaking and myself, in either direction, so that I can quickly return to my side of the road.

Oh, and straw man - it seems like you're using the term incorrectly to me. It's you who debates dishonestly here.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> The bold bit is pure assumption on your part.
> 
> Where we don't agree is whether continuing to accelerate or not is the right action. Rule 168 specifically refers to drivers overtaking, rather than cyclists.



You believe its okay to out-accelerate a cyclist who is half way around overtaking a bus or a car?

Sorry, but no, you're now just being ridiculous. You know it too.


----------



## Tynan (19 Dec 2007)

that's you told BM


----------



## domd1979 (19 Dec 2007)

You're placing rather a lot of emphasis on Highway Code rule 168, the spirit of which probably isn't aimed at the type of situation that occurred.

You ignore preceding rules which arguably the cyclist should have taken note of:
164 - "make sure that you have enough room to complete your overtaking manoeuvre before committing yourself. It takes longer to pass a large vehicle. If in doubt do not overtake"

166 - "DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt"

167 - "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example....when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled"

I make that three rules the cyclist ignored: there wasn't the room to overtake, there was doubt, the bus was indicating - there was a risk of conflict.



Cab said:


> You believe its okay to out-accelerate a cyclist who is half way around overtaking a bus or a car?
> 
> Sorry, but no, you're now just being ridiculous. You know it too.


----------



## Cab (19 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> You're placing rather a lot of emphasis on Highway Code rule 168, the spirit of which probably isn't aimed at the type of situation that occurred.
> 
> You ignore preceding rules which arguably the cyclist should have taken note of:



No, I don't, and this is just the same straw man that BM kept coming back with a little while ago. 

Whether or not the cyclist was in error there (and its just so hard for us to say because we've got no information) doesn't change whether or not the bus driver is in error in trying to out-accelerate a vehicle that is overtaking.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

domd you need to post that in the 'is this cyclist bad' thread, we're talking about the bus driver here, remember? The clue is in the subject title.

Nethalus, just out of interest, how fast do you think you were going when you first noticed the cyclist?

Also, would you have driven differently at that point if you weren't in the state of irritation that you describe?

Also, did you first notice the cyclist as a result of her shout?


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Cab, you clearly don't understand what a straw man is.

Secondly you're wrong in suggesting that the cyclist was half-way along the bus when overtaking. Go and read the OP, where you'll see that the cyclist had just got level with the rear of the bus. You're the one who's making straw men.

I think the cyclist hadn't actually committed to the overtake and could still easily bail out of it. Nethalus's comment about the cyclist being level with the rear of the bus makes it even more clear that the bus should have continued to accelerate in this specific situation.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> that's you told BM



LOL, it's quite entertaining isn't it! I should probably stop poking Cab with a stick, I'm just amazed how much effort and vitriol he's put into debating such a tiny and minor incident.


----------



## Tynan (19 Dec 2007)

'domd you need to post that in the 'is this cyclist bad' thread, we're talking about the bus driver here, remember?'

that's convenient, so it all about how bad the bus driver was and the cyclist is irrelevant?


----------



## domd1979 (19 Dec 2007)

No, I don't.

The actions of the cyclist are relevant - you can't choose to ignore them just because the cyclist didn't act in a particularly sensible manner.



Brock said:


> domd you need to post that in the 'is this cyclist bad' thread, we're talking about the bus driver here, remember? The clue is in the subject title.


----------



## gambatte (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> I can also think of many situations in which continuing with something you've started is the best move.



Think this might be one of 'em!


----------



## domd1979 (19 Dec 2007)

Rubbish.

Its easy to deduce the cyclist was in error - there's nothing "hard" about it and its porky pies to say there's "no information". If he'd paid attention to the very Highway Code you've mentioned many times, then he wouldn't have got to the point of even trying to attempt to begin an overtake, nor shouting at the bus. 




Cab said:


> Whether or not the cyclist was in error there (and its just so hard for us to say because we've got no information) doesn't change whether or not the bus driver is in error in trying to out-accelerate a vehicle that is overtaking.


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Surely there's something between accelerating and braking hard though?



Yes there is,passengers possibly being injured.But then your understanding of this doesnt come across .


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You believe its okay to out-accelerate a cyclist who is half way around overtaking a bus or a car?
> 
> Sorry, but no, you're now just being ridiculous. You know it too.




Now your over assuming,and trying to validate a different argument with a common sense answer,but which isnt applicable to this incident.


----------



## nethalus (19 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Yes there is,passengers possibly being injured.But then your understanding of this doesnt come across .



Aye the B7TLs can be sod sometimes. Even braking at low speeds some of them buck and kick. I was doing ten miles an hour once following in traffic I braked to slow down because traffic ahead was stopping and the swine started bucking. Some little toddler who'd been put on one of them swing down seats in the buggy bay fell of the seat. Of course who did everyone blame, even though the bucking was beyond my control!!


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Aye the B7TLs can be sod sometimes. Even braking at low speeds some of them buck and kick. I was doing ten miles an hour once following in traffic I braked to slow down because traffic ahead was stopping and the swine started bucking. Some little toddler who'd been put on one of them swing down seats in the buggy bay fell of the seat. Of course who did everyone blame, even though the bucking was beyond my control!!




I know what you mean,we use darts,and some of them jump in and out of gear as you slow,so it seems your pumping the breaks,but your foot is going like the clappers,trying to cancel out the jumps,My main worry ,is that an elderly person goes down,cracks a hip,and its the beggining of the end for them.
Like brock asked ,about there must be something between accelerating,and breaking hard,normally its someone on the bus thats thrown,who wasnt expecting it.So an ignorant cyclist ,who may force a sudden breaking scenario,needs to understand the possible outcome of their pig headedness,or just pure ignorance of the subject.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> 'domd you need to post that in the 'is this cyclist bad' thread, we're talking about the bus driver here, remember?'
> 
> that's convenient, so it all about how bad the bus driver was and the cyclist is irrelevant?



Well done.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

So you're unable to slow from or maintain a speed of ten miles an hour without significant risk of injury to passengers?
How on Earth do you manage in traffic?


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> So you're unable to slow from or maintain a speed of ten miles an hour without significant risk of injury to passengers?
> How on Earth do you manage in traffic?





Changing it again eh?Ah well, its to be expected now i suppose.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

Col, I'm asking a question. I'm not 'changing' anything.


----------



## nethalus (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> So you're unable to slow from or maintain a speed of ten miles an hour without significant risk of injury to passengers?
> How on Earth do you manage in traffic?



When the B7TLs were new they had a problem with the ABS that made them occasionally, not always, buck about. They have ironed out the problem with most of them now, but they can still have a habit of doing it when it's wet. 
Most of the time in traffic etc we use a technique called feathering the brake, where you gently apply the brake on and off to make the vehicle slow down smoothly. Forward planning and good anticipation also help considerably, but then no one's perfect and it's possible to miss things every so often.


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Col, I'm asking a question. I'm not 'changing' anything.




It seems obvious the implication of what you asked.But this time omitting the hard breaking part of it.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

Errr not quite sure what you mean Col.

The last bunch of posts seem to be trying to imply that the bus couldn't do anything other than accelerate because it would cause the passengers injury.

Clearly the ideal response when you notice a vehicle in an overtaking maneuver is not to brake hard, or accelerate, but simply to maintain your speed. Am I to understand (not having much experience of heavy vehicles) that this would've caused danger to the passengers?


----------



## nethalus (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Errr not quite sure what you mean Col.
> 
> The last bunch of posts seem to be trying to imply that the bus couldn't do anything other than accelerate because it would cause the passengers injury.
> 
> Clearly the ideal response when you notice a vehicle in an overtaking maneuver is not to brake hard, or accelerate, but simply to maintain your speed. Am I to understand (not having much experience of heavy vehicles) that this would've caused danger to the passengers?



No it would have meant you would have a bus and a cycle going up the road at 10mph!!


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> So you're unable to slow from or maintain a speed of ten miles an hour without significant risk of injury to passengers?
> How on Earth do you manage in traffic?




It came across as a sarcastic comment,and normally we manage fine in traffic.


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Errr not quite sure what you mean Col.
> 
> The last bunch of posts seem to be trying to imply that the bus couldn't do anything other than accelerate because it would cause the passengers injury.
> 
> Clearly the ideal response when you notice a vehicle in an overtaking maneuver is not to brake hard, or accelerate, but simply to maintain your speed. Am I to understand (not having much experience of heavy vehicles) that this would've caused danger to the passengers?




Im not sure how you are asking this,?It does seem that sarcasm is how it comes across,as a repost to past posts,but if its serious,Yes breaking hard and suddenly,just after accelerating,normally catch's people off guard,and falls are possible.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

Col are you on the Christmas port or something?


Think I'll join you!
slurrp


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Col are you on the Christmas port or something?
> 
> 
> Think I'll join you!
> slurrp




No,but i wish i was,but im up at 330 in the morning,for another lovely shift.


----------



## Brock (19 Dec 2007)

Best hit the sack then mate!


----------



## col (19 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Best hit the sack then mate!




I did used to go early,but just lay looking at the clock,cant go before eleven now,unless im at the end of a week of earlies,then im ready to go to kip.Kettles gone on,for the last drink of the night.


----------



## goo_mason (20 Dec 2007)

col said:


> I did used to go early,but just lay looking at the clock,cant go before eleven now,unless im at the end of a week of earlies,then im ready to go to kip.Kettles gone on,for the last drink of the night.



Try re-reading this whole thread from the start if you have trouble getting to sleep. It certainly works for mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Tetedelacourse (20 Dec 2007)

I've taken the liberty of developing a high-impact piece of advertising to promote this thread in case anyone has missed it.


----------



## gambatte (20 Dec 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I've taken the liberty of developing a high-impact piece of advertising to promote this thread in case anyone has missed it.



Like it!

Mind, maybe 'The Neverending Story' would have been a better template?


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> 'domd you need to post that in the 'is this cyclist bad' thread, we're talking about the bus driver here, remember?'
> 
> that's convenient, so it all about how bad the bus driver was and the cyclist is irrelevant?



Did I miss something, or is the title of the thread 'was this bus driver bad', and is it not about a bus driver asking whether or not she was in the wrong?

Yes, its all about the bus driver. It isn't about whether the cyclist was wrong or not.


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> The actions of the cyclist are relevant - you can't choose to ignore them just because the cyclist didn't act in a particularly sensible manner.



Ignore them? So are you actually going to comment on what I've actually said about the cyclists behaviour and the repurcussions thereof, or are you just going to assert that they're being ignored? Or are you instead going to tell us why what may have been a mistake from the cyclist would excuse a later intentional, dangerous manoevre from another vehicle? Is it now okay to endanger people because we think they've done something stupid?

Or do you have some secret evidence that the cyclist definitely did something stupid, and could not have had a valid reason for starting to go past the bus, which you can then elaborately expand into reasoning why out-accelerating a vehicle thats going past you is now acceptable?


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Did I miss something, or is the title of the thread 'was this bus driver bad', and is it not about a bus driver asking whether or not she was in the wrong?
> 
> Yes, its all about the bus driver. It isn't about whether the cyclist was wrong or not.



you surely can't be serious?

so it a two vehicle incident and the behaviour of one of the parties is utterly irrelevant and not to be commented on in anyway?

incredible


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> No it would have meant you would have a bus and a cycle going up the road at 10mph!!:?:



If your vehicle really can't slow down from 10mph without bucking about, its probably not fit to be on the road. 

But to be honest, I've been in a bus countless times. Nearly all drivers in nearly all busses can slow down from 10mph without throwing passengers about; you didn't need to do a sudden stop, you just needed to ease off (feathering?).


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> you surely can't be serious?
> 
> so it a two vehicle incident and the behaviour of one of the parties is utterly irrelevant and not to be commented on in anyway?
> 
> incredible



The question is 'was the bus driver bad'. What part of that do you find hard to comprehend? 

If the cyclist made an initial mistake, or not, it doesn't at all change whether or not the bus driver was subsequently wrong to out-accelerate the cyclist, or whether the bus driver also made an initial mistake (understandable) in not spotting the cyclist.

Nethalus seems to accept that. You don't? Why not?


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> No it would have meant you would have a bus and a cycle going up the road at 10mph!!:?:



Better than out-accelerating the bike.

If you maintain a constant course and speed then the cyclist can eiether continue overtaking (I'd be well past you if you were doing 10mph), or slow down and tuck in behind you. If you accelerate you're endangering the cyclist.

The highway code tells you, in this situation, to slow down. It doesn't tell you that you have to take a risk to allow the other guy past. The correct course of action would be to gently slow down (if you can) and move over a little to make the overtaking safer. If you really can't slow down from 10mph without danger then your vehicle shouldn't be on the road, to be honest.


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

because I find it a very narrow way to look at the problem that does the situation no justice

I understand your argument just find, thank-you so much for suggesting I'm stupid, you and your reasonable arguments strike again

you do this don't you, work out by trial the part of the argument that you can defend and then stick to it, ignoring and disqualifying all the bits that you can't


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> because I find it a very narrow way to look at the problem that does the situation no justice



You mean, if the cyclist had made a mistake it would justify the bus driver not taking every care in ensuring the safety of another road user? Because thats what it comes down to; if the cyclists behaviour is relevant to the subsequent actions of the bus driver once she's seen the cyclist and knows he's there, then thats _precisely_ what you're saying.



> I understand your argument just find, thank-you so much for suggesting I'm stupid, you and your reasonable arguments strike again
> 
> you do this don't you, work out by trial the part of the argument that you can defend and then stick to it, ignoring and disqualifying all the bits that you can't



Nope. I deduce or induce what I believe to be a correct position and test it by comparing it with other positions put forward by other people. I wish I could work out what the hell the angle you're taking is.


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

it's not black and white cab, it rarely is, it doesn't have to be either party's fault entirely, it can be both in part

you started with a much wider argument than out accelerating earlier on...

I suggest you were shown to be unfounded on most of your initial points and are now repeatedly posting 'out accelerating' as your last proof that the bus driver was wrong, while saying that the cyclist's blame is irrelevant

that simply sounds like an attempt to win an argument regardless to me

no comment on suggesting I'm stupid because you didn't like my post? weren't you one that denied making personal remarks to other posters and thus starting rancour on the thread?

I posted plenty of times on this thread before it turned into war and peace, I'm long since sick of thrashing out what are very unremarkable facts, the situation probably crops up for me and indeed anyone on a bus route ten times a day and more, it's not exciting and it's not contentious

shouldn't be anyway


----------



## magnatom (20 Dec 2007)

Oops I've popped back in. 

Keep going guys, I don't think we've had a 50 page thread in commuting yet on cyclechat. I think we have a good chance with this one 

So we know where the bus was and where the cyclist was but where does the elephant come in to all of this?:?:


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

the cyclist is utterly irrelevant so I leave you guess where the elephant comes into it


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> it's not black and white cab, it rarely is, it doesn't have to be either party's fault entirely, it can be both in part



But that isn't the question. The question is whether or not the bus driver was bad. Whether or not the cyclist should have gone past is a different question to what the bus driver should do having made an initial error (not seeing the cyclist, easily happens). 




> you started with a much wider argument than out accelerating earlier on...



Which is what the topic is about; was the bus driver bad. The answer is yes, the bus driver made three mistakes. I provided reaosning for that, and, crucially, on reflecting on those reasons and my request that she not make the same errors again, she agreed.

So she accepted that. You don't? Why not?



> I suggest you were shown to be unfounded on most of your initial points and are now repeatedly posting 'out accelerating' as your last proof that the bus driver was wrong, while saying that the cyclist's blame is irrelevant
> 
> that simply sounds like an attempt to win an argument regardless to me



Each and every one of my points (the three errors made by the bus driver) has been accepted by that driver. I've not sought to defend other assertions.



> no comment on suggesting I'm stupid because you didn't like my post? weren't you one that denied making personal remarks to other posters and thus starting rancour on the thread?



Suggesting you were stupid? Where? Really, do you mean 'what part of (x) do you not understand?'. I still don't know why you believe that when the topic under discussion is 'was the bus driver bad' you want to seek vindication in other possible errors made by the cyclist (errors we can't ascertain were made or not) of mistakes already accepted by the bus driver. It makes no sense. If you're feeling insulted by that question, tough, its not an insult. Its a request for clarification, for you to explain a stance that makes no sense.


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

it suggest that the only reason you could think of for me not agreeing with your stance was that I was too stupid to understand it, what other reason could there be?

do you get bored with repeating the same narrow arguments over and over again? I'm starting to think that you're not doing it on purpose

it's why you're always the last man standing on these set pieces


----------



## Cab (20 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> it suggest that the only reason you could think of for me not agreeing with your stance was that I was too stupid to understand it, what other reason could there be?



I humbly put it to you that you've got a chip on your shoulder.



> do you get bored with repeating the same narrow arguments over and over again? I'm starting to think that you're not doing it on purpose
> 
> it's why you're always the last man standing on these set pieces



Thats simple to answer. Because I'll only get involved in a discussion like this when I am, demonstrably, right.


----------



## gambatte (20 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> So we know where the bus was and where the cyclist was but where does the elephant come in to all of this?



He gave the giraffe a lift


----------



## nethalus (20 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Oops I've popped back in.
> 
> Keep going guys, I don't think we've had a 50 page thread in commuting yet on cyclechat. I think we have a good chance with this one
> 
> So we know where the bus was and where the cyclist was but where does the elephant come in to all of this?



It was on the top deck of the bus on one of the seats behind the stairwell!


----------



## Tynan (20 Dec 2007)

cab, I do hope there's some humour in there, you've been shown to be wrong several times on this very thread, most recently when you said the cycle was halfway past the bus before it pulled out

as for chip, you most certainly suggested that I couldn't/didn't understand your argument, as one of your sympathisers earlier on this thread said, your arguments are 'aggressive'

I'd go further than myself, suspect others would too


----------



## nethalus (20 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Oops I've popped back in.
> 
> Keep going guys, I don't think we've had a 50 page thread in commuting yet on cyclechat. I think we have a good chance with this one
> 
> So we know where the bus was and where the cyclist was but where does the elephant come in to all of this?



Mind you, saying that good old Jamcomus Rides Gen started one of the longest threads going on bloodbus. Albeit it did start to go off subject after a while!


----------



## domd1979 (20 Dec 2007)

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.




Cab said:


> I humbly put it to you that you've got a chip on your shoulder.


----------



## domd1979 (20 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> So are you actually going to comment on what I've actually said about the cyclists behaviour and the repurcussions thereof, or are you just going to assert that they're being ignored?



Are you actually going to comment on the 3 highway code rules I posted before that the cyclist broke (plus a fourth - letting buses pull out, which I forgot to add in before)? Thought not.




> Or are you instead going to tell us why what may have been a mistake from the cyclist would excuse a later intentional, dangerous manoevre from another vehicle? Is it now okay to endanger people because we think they've done something stupid?




It wasn't a particularly dangerous scenario was it though? The bus had plenty of room to accelerate into, the cyclist had plenty of room to slow down and let the bus out. Hardly life threatening.


----------



## domd1979 (20 Dec 2007)

Some where here:

http://www.kalimpong.info/wordpress/wp-content/images/nosyguy001sd1.jpg



magnatom said:


> So we know where the bus was and where the cyclist was but where does the elephant come in to all of this?


----------



## tdr1nka (20 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> I humbly put it to you that you've got a chip on your shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats simple to answer. Because I'll only get involved in a discussion like this when I am, demonstrably, right.




For fear of pouring water on coals once more, may I suggest that Cab is a demonstratively well balanced chap with a chip on both shoulders.

T x


----------



## BentMikey (20 Dec 2007)

Come on Cab, what's so hard about admitting there is a sliding scale of emphasis in the situation which ranges from your extreme, that of it being better for the bus to stop and wait for the cyclist to pass, to my extreme, that of it being better for the bus to continue with a committed move.

You can't possibly argue that stopping is the only correct thing to do, not and remain credible. You should also realise your viewpoint is unlikely to be correct when you have so many experienced cyclists disagreeing with you.


----------



## tdr1nka (20 Dec 2007)

If only we as road users could throw the full force of the highway code at every driver that made the tiniest error of judgement, regardless of how potentially fatal the outcome may or could have been, the roads would be totally empty but for cyclists and lynch mobs out to find cyclists.
It gets my vote of course, but it is an utter fantasy.

Cab, I have had a bus driver leave a scene when he had let passengers off his bus when stuck in traffic and not at a stop.
One of his passengers stepped out behind the bus and met me rolling to a stop behind the bus. This spooked the passenger enough to punch me in the head repeatedly until I was losing teeth.

The driver was in the wrong to let the passengers off, simply enough.
The driver who bore witness said he would call the Police but then didn't and drove off with a bus full of witnesses to my assault.
Following up the reg & route of the bus I found the Manager at the bus depot singularly unhelpful and the driver wouldn't even be questioned as he was a temporary driver on that route and didn't work from the Stockwell Garage.

This might also be why I err on the side of caution when dealing with busses. Always expect the unexpected.

T x


----------



## nethalus (20 Dec 2007)

> Lads,
> 
> Our first 50-pager should be something memorable. A valid argument. A hot topic. An argument with a crack-pot. A long long thread of photos. A furious row full of abuse and spinny-style insults.
> 
> ...



Is this really the first time a topic has gone on for 50 pages!!


----------



## gambatte (20 Dec 2007)

> First time on here I think.
> 
> It happened a few times on the old C+ forum.
> 
> Whatever you do, don't suggest that red light jumping is safer than not.



But it is, if riding a giraffe....


----------



## Tetedelacourse (20 Dec 2007)

He is right though, but it's like backing George Galloway to win Celebrity Big Brother.


----------



## tdr1nka (20 Dec 2007)

Like riding a giraffe with a CCTV camera on its head.
Cor! Imagine the view!

T x


----------



## Brock (21 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Like riding a giraffe with a CCTV camera on its head.
> Cor! Imagine the view!
> 
> T x



The view would mostly be neck I assume?


----------



## gambatte (21 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> The view would mostly be neck I assume?



On its head, not yours

Panoramic views of homicidal maniac bus drivers and cyclists with uzis...


(Wonder if its available for PS3?)


----------



## nethalus (21 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Taking it personally? No, and I'll bet the only reason Nethalus has agreed with your point of view is just to get you to stop posting.
> .



Damn I got sussed!!!













Only kiddin!!!


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

Tynan said:


> cab, I do hope there's some humour in there, you've been shown to be wrong several times on this very thread, most recently when you said the cycle was halfway past the bus before it pulled out



Errm, no, I really haven't. I'm correct, Nethalus has accepted that I'm correct, you don't. I'm right in terms of what is expected, legally, from any road user. I'm right that trying to out-accelerate a vehicle passing you ion those circumstances is dangerous. I'm right that Nethalus oughtn't have compounded an initial understandable error with two further errors, and I'm glad that she's accepted that. She's clearly a better person than some others here for that, and _perhaps_ next time there will be less risk of a cyclist getting hurt because of it. I'd have thought you'd be glad about that, clearly not.



> as for chip, you most certainly suggested that I couldn't/didn't understand your argument, as one of your sympathisers earlier on this thread said, your arguments are 'aggressive'
> 
> I'd go further than myself, suspect others would too



You're oddly sore about this for someone who hasn't actually put any constructive argument forward. Get over it.


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Pot.
> 
> Kettle.
> 
> Black.



Chip on shoulder? On the contrary, this thread has shown me that theres absolutely no reason for me to ever take posts by certain contributors seriously. Really, I've come away from this with an odd sense of superiority.


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Are you actually going to comment on the 3 highway code rules I posted before that the cyclist broke (plus a fourth - letting buses pull out, which I forgot to add in before)? Thought not.



See the topic of the thread. Was the bus driver bad. We have no knowledge of what the cyclist really did; its not on topic and it isn't relevant to the question in hand.



> It wasn't a particularly dangerous scenario was it though? The bus had plenty of room to accelerate into, the cyclist had plenty of room to slow down and let the bus out. Hardly life threatening.



I beg to differ. Having a vehicle compound the error of having not seen a cyclist by then continuing to pull into the space the cyclist is in/heading in to is potentially lethal; but really, thats not the point. The point is that its a needless extra risk that you just can't rightly expose other road users to. Ain't legal, ain't appropriate. Or do you believe that needlessly increasing the risk other road users face is okay?


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Come on Cab, what's so hard about admitting there is a sliding scale of emphasis in the situation which ranges from your extreme, that of it being better for the bus to stop and wait for the cyclist to pass, to my extreme, that of it being better for the bus to continue with a committed move.



Based on what Nethalus said, and what she's agreed, that simply isn't applicable. She asknowledged her error, its a simple set of errors to make that each compound the last. I haven't put forward an 'extreme', I've not put _any_ set of circumstances forward.



> You can't possibly argue that stopping is the only correct thing to do, not and remain credible. You should also realise your viewpoint is unlikely to be correct when you have so many experienced cyclists disagreeing with you.



Ain't my fault if there are others here who couldn't seem to analyze the position as described by Nethalus.


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> If only we as road users could throw the full force of the highway code at every driver that made the tiniest error of judgement, regardless of how potentially fatal the outcome may or could have been, the roads would be totally empty but for cyclists and lynch mobs out to find cyclists.
> It gets my vote of course, but it is an utter fantasy.



I agree. Can't do that. Doesn't make telling people who ask about what they did whether or not they were wrong, which is after all the topic of this discussion. Nethalus asked, I told her.



> Cab, I have had a bus driver leave a scene when he had let passengers off his bus when stuck in traffic and not at a stop.
> One of his passengers stepped out behind the bus and met me rolling to a stop behind the bus. This spooked the passenger enough to punch me in the head repeatedly until I was losing teeth.
> 
> The driver was in the wrong to let the passengers off, simply enough.
> ...



Terrible, horrible thing to happen. And I always treat busses or any other vehicles as if they're driven by/passengered with wierdos. Doesn't make any such behaviour excusable just because we're looking out for it, though.


----------



## Twenty Inch (26 Dec 2007)

I haven't bothered reading 42 pages of posts but just wanted to add my tuppence' worth

*takes out 2p, chucks it at computer*

There. Ta-ra!


----------



## mickle (26 Dec 2007)

A tuppence isn't 2p though


----------



## Twenty Inch (26 Dec 2007)

mickle said:


> A tuppence isn't 2p though



Would you abuse me like that if you were working in a bank? No, didn't think so. It's completely unacceptable and you know it.


----------



## nethalus (26 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Terrible, horrible thing to happen. And I always treat busses or any other vehicles as if they're driven by/passengered with wierdos. Doesn't make any such behaviour excusable just because we're looking out for it, though.



That's funny I assume the same thing about people who are riding bicycles! (joke)


----------



## mickle (26 Dec 2007)

Twenty Inch said:


> Would you abuse me like that if you were working in a bank? No, didn't think so. It's completely unacceptable and you know it.



Sorry.

A tuppence isn't 2p though _Sir_.


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> That's funny I assume the same thing about people who are riding bicycles! (joke)



No, you're right to give other road users the space such that if they're idiots you're still likely to miss them! You don't have to joke about that


----------



## BentMikey (26 Dec 2007)

you can really post such tripe sometimes Cab.


----------



## gbb (26 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> That's funny I assume the same thing about people who are riding bicycles! (joke)



I actually assume (of people i dont know...and actually, some i do ) that EVERYONES a wierdo or an idiot, in any situation in daily life..its a good safety mechanism. You half expect the unexpected.


----------



## Twenty Inch (26 Dec 2007)

mickle said:


> Sorry.
> 
> A tuppence isn't 2p though _Sir_.



Now I'm just assuming that you are a weirdo. 

*exits debate, hurriedly*


----------



## gambatte (26 Dec 2007)

mickle said:


> Sorry.
> 
> A tuppence isn't 2p though _Sir_.



So how much is it for a tuppence?


----------



## mickle (26 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> So how much is it for a tuppence?



A shilling (twelvepence) became 5 'new pence' or 5p, upon decimalisation. 
2p (= 40% of 5p or 2/5 of a shilling) = 4 4/5 old pence.
Tuppence (= a sixth of a shilling or 16.666 of 5p) = 0.833p.


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> you can really post such tripe sometimes Cab.



You need to raise your game rather if you're going to be convincing in a serious discussion.


----------



## nethalus (26 Dec 2007)

Talking about weird or scary road users, I once saw a rather scary looking cyclist. I was watching traffic in my wing mirror looking to see if it was safe to pull out, but not yet indicating. As I'm watching the road, which was now empty of traffic, all of a sudden this cyclist comes out of nowhere. He looked scary as he was wearing a totally black all over tight lycra suit and a black helmet. Not one bit of hi visability on him, which is probably why I hadn't seen him until he started to overtake and pass my bus. He looked like some sort of scary ninja assasin or something. He was going at some speed too. I set off and never saw him again.


----------



## gambatte (26 Dec 2007)

If its daylight, a 100% legal roaduser


----------



## nethalus (26 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> If its daylight, a 100% legal roaduser



I don't dispute that, but it's better to be seen by others than be sorry. It would not have hurt the chap to have a day glow hi viz vest or harness on to make him more visable to others. When people wear dark clothes while cycling they tend to blend in with the road and with the surroundings. A bit of hi-viz on him would make him stand out more. I know he probably felt cool and sexy in his skin tight black lycra suit, but that ain't going to help him if, god forbid, someone don't see him and flattens him!!


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Dec 2007)

I spent a lot of my younger years blissfully ignorant and I rode only with basic front and rear lights. And no helmet.

Now I don't feel safe without my lid, gloves and more fluro than a crusty rave tent. I look like a cross between major road works and a Christmas tree.

To be frank, I loath it. I look like a clown and I miss the days of stealth but it is a necessity in the world of Urban Cycling.

Got to set a good example to the kids, grumble, mumble etc.

T x


----------



## Brock (26 Dec 2007)

Did you get regularly run over by visually impared drivers and smash your brains out before you saw sense then Tdr1nka?


----------



## mickle (26 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> I don't dispute that, but it's better to be seen by others than be sorry. It would not have hurt the chap to have a day glow hi viz vest or harness on to make him more visable to others. When people wear dark clothes while cycling they tend to blend in with the road and with the surroundings. A bit of hi-viz on him would make him stand out more. I know he probably felt cool and sexy in his skin tight black lycra suit, but that ain't going to help him if, god forbid, someone don't see him and flattens him!!



Oh and motorcyclists shouldn't wear black then, and while we're at it lets ban black cars because how can you possibly see them? Nothing personal nethy but putting the onus on vulnerable road users to wear horrendous day-glo we might as well paint the whole world day-glo because how the hell can anyone be expected to see, for example, a grey lampost. The more people who wear fluorescent the more it becomes expected and the less motorists will actually *look*. SMIDSY = SMIDL.

I had this once, a guy driving a Chavalier pulled straight out in front of me as I was descending a hill at speed. I was wearing black. Rather than apologise for his illegal and life threatening manoeuvre he had a go at me for wearing black. Until I am compelled by law to wear flouro pink reflective water-wings and wrap my arse in tinsel I will wear black whilst riding my bike.

(


----------



## nethalus (26 Dec 2007)

People don't have to be visually impared not to see something. It's like when I was doing the Smith System course at work, they did demonstrations to show how when focused on something your field of vision becomes very narrow. Movement, light and bright colours seen moving in the corner of the eye can attract your attention. This was also why we were advised when sat at traffic lights or waiting in traffic to keep the eyes moving as much as possible to avoid losing concentration by just focusing on one object, ie the red traffic light or the brake light of the vehicle in front. And also so that you can see as much as possible of what's going on around. 
It is because people often focus on what's happening directly ahead rather than what's going on elsewhere that motorcyclists are advised to have headlights on at all times. The light attracts the eyes of other road users and they can see the motorcyclist. It's the same with bright colours, you are more likely to notice someone with a hi viz on than someone wearing a dark brown coat. So it makes sense to make sure you can be seen by others, even if you think it's nampy pampy over zealous saftey spoil sports just out to ruin your fun!!


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

While its easier to see someone in high viz if its light, its still inexcusable to miss someone when its light just 'cos they're wearing the wrong colour. No one would ever dare use that excuse with a motorcyclist, a car or a pedestrian.


----------



## nethalus (26 Dec 2007)

mickle said:


> Oh and motorcyclists shouldn't wear black then, and while we're at it lets ban black cars because how can you possibly see them? Nothing personal nethy but putting the onus on vulnerable road users to wear horrendous day-glo we might as well paint the whole world day-glo because how the hell can anyone be expected to see, for example, a grey lampost. The more people who wear fluorescent the more it becomes expected and the less motorists will actually *look*. SMIDSY = SMIDL.
> 
> I had this once, a guy driving a Chavalier pulled straight out in front of me as I was descending a hill at speed. I was wearing black. Rather than apologise for his illegal and life threatening manoeuvre he had a go at me for wearing black. Until I am compelled by law to wear flouro pink reflective water-wings and wrap my arse in tinsel I will wear black whilst riding my bike.
> 
> (



You can wear what the hell you like when riding your bike, I just think it's common sense to make sure you are seen. There are people out there who have admited they didn't see a 14.5ft tall 8ft wide double decker bus and if they can't see that what chance has a small, narrow cyclist got??
It's to make the buses more visable to road users that buses have headlights on at all times. As for black cars, they are larger than a cyclist, who can disapear for longer in a blind spot, or be hidden by other objects.
I've seen many a time how hi viz is better than just wearing a black or brown coat. You can spot the hi viz wearing cyclist from far further away and prepare for them well in advance.


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> I've seen many a time how hi viz is better than just wearing a black or brown coat. You can spot the hi viz wearing cyclist from far further away and prepare for them well in advance.



Your line of sight is no further. That you _notice_ them more easily further away does not make them visible from further. 

Really, if its light and they're there you should see them. I see the argument for cyclists wearing bright clothes, but thats just no excuse not to see them.


----------



## nethalus (26 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> While its easier to see someone in high viz if its light, its still inexcusable to miss someone when its light just 'cos they're wearing the wrong colour. No one would ever dare use that excuse with a motorcyclist, a car or a pedestrian.



People do miss seeing pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclsts and cars though. That's why accidents happen. People are not paying attention at a critical moment and bang!!


----------



## nethalus (26 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Your line of sight is no further. That you _notice_ them more easily further away does not make them visible from further.
> 
> Really, if its light and they're there you should see them. I see the argument for cyclists wearing bright clothes, but thats just no excuse not to see them.



So you'd rather people went around wearing dark clothes and possibly not be seen early enough by others? And here's someone who claims to know all about road saftey eh???? 
I'm not saying people have to wear hi viz clothing I just find that you can see them better against the back ground. I honestly don't know what your problem is with that?


----------



## Twenty Inch (26 Dec 2007)

Ha, ha, Cab, you nearly got me! I thought you were making a serious point just to wind Nethalus up there.


----------



## gambatte (26 Dec 2007)

So by taking the argument 1 step further, you're saying al pedestrians ought to wear hi-viz as well?


----------



## col (26 Dec 2007)

This debate has nothing to do with the origional post at all, we all know what your saying is right,why make an argument out of it.


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> People do miss seeing pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclsts and cars though. That's why accidents happen. People are not paying attention at a critical moment and bang!!



I agree. People not paying attention does cause accidents. Odd that so many people seem willing to place part of the blame for that on the cyclist for not wearing dayglo clothing when its the fault of the person not paying attention.


----------



## Cab (26 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> So you'd rather people went around wearing dark clothes and possibly not be seen early enough by others?



I neither said nor implied that. Why do you infer that?



> And here's someone who claims to know all about road saftey eh????



I've claimed no such thing.



> I'm not saying people have to wear hi viz clothing I just find that you can see them better against the back ground. I honestly don't know what your problem is with that?



The problem is that you've only thought through about half of this.

I wear high viz stuff because on balance I think its a good thing. But its a fine balance; you're more visible, but strangely it seems to wind up motorists even more. I get more aggro when wearing such kit, I get more attempted bad overtakes. I get faster overtakes. I don't believe that in most town streets I'm more visible, I think that what restricts how far away I can be seen is the layout of the street I'm on, other traffic, etc. I suspect that high viz is really only useful to a cyclist if he's also willing to be really rather assertive on the roads, you have to really claim your space if your clothing encourages bad behaviour from motorists (theres been a little research done on this, I believe). 

And, in all honesty, if I'm in a good road position then I'm every bit as visible as any other vehicle. I don't find that I get given more road space or less vehicles pulling out in front if I'm wearing high viz, I find that the single biggest factor in that is claiming a good road position where I'm right in the motorists line of sight. It is my experience that bright colours in secondary position gets you worse treatment than ordinary clothing in primary; you might be more visible but, oddly, they _hate_ you for it.

So I'm always highly skeptical when I hear any motorist telling me that high viz helps them see a cyclist. Yeah, maybe, but not only would you see those cyclists if they were in the right road position anyway, but _even if they are not_ it is your absolute duty to see them whether they're wearing high viz or not.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Did you get regularly run over by visually impared drivers and smash your brains out before you saw sense then Tdr1nka?



In fact I didn't, I thought that after 10 years or so of some bloody amazing luck and excellent road skills I thought it best not to chance that luck any further.

Thanks for the concern tho.....


T x


----------



## mickle (27 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> People don't have to be visually impared not to see something. It's like when I was doing the Smith System course at work, they did demonstrations to show how when focused on something your field of vision becomes very narrow. Movement, light and bright colours seen moving in the corner of the eye can attract your attention. This was also why we were advised when sat at traffic lights or waiting in traffic to keep the eyes moving as much as possible to avoid losing concentration by just focusing on one object, ie the red traffic light or the brake light of the vehicle in front. And also so that you can see as much as possible of what's going on around.
> It is because people often focus on what's happening directly ahead rather than what's going on elsewhere that motorcyclists are advised to have headlights on at all times. The light attracts the eyes of other road users and they can see the motorcyclist. It's the same with bright colours, you are more likely to notice someone with a hi viz on than someone wearing a dark brown coat. So it makes sense to make sure you can be seen by others, even if you think it's nampy pampy over zealous saftey spoil sports just out to ruin your fun!!




May I refer the right honourable member to my earlier post.

SMIDSY = SMIDL. 

We all have a duty of care to all other road users irrespective of what colour outfit they might be wearing.


----------



## Brock (27 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> In fact I didn't, I thought that after 10 years or so of some bloody amazing luck and excellent road skills I thought it best not to chance that luck any further.
> 
> Thanks for the concern tho.....
> 
> ...



I see.. I just wondered if after ten years, there was a particular incident or moment of clarity where you suddenly realised you needed different coloured clothes and a funny hat.


----------



## gambatte (27 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> So by taking the argument 1 step further, you're saying al pedestrians ought to wear hi-viz as well?



Netty, you didn't answer. Is the answer 'yes'? if not, why not?


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

(Rejoins 'debate' as the emphases has changed).

I can see where nethalus is coming from. She is absolutely correct that wearing contrasting (exactly what colour depends on background etc) colours can make you more visible even during the day. That is common sense and I am sure science sense as well. Nethalus is not saying that we should all be forced to wear it, but she has suggested that it is not a bad idea.

Of course it is all about risk. How much more risky is it not to wear contrasting colours on a bright day. Probably very little, but yes it probably does improve thet wearers safety if only slightly. On a bright day many other factors will be more important like, cyclist skill, driver skill, road conditions etc.

Using the 'oh should pedestrians wear hi-viz' argument is pretty cheap. Comparing cyclists who (should be) on the road to pedestrians who flirt with the road is just silly. Anyway to some extent the argument is probably true for pedestrians as well, although to a lesser degree.

Using pedestrians as an example, would we all agree that at night when it is dark and raining, that a pedestrian wearing bright colours (in street lighting) is more visible than someone wearing all black? Of course they are. Are they therefore safer? Of course they are. Maybe only slightly but they are.

Of course I don't think the law will ever suggest that we all have to go around at night dressed up like something out of the 70's (funky ), but the fact remains.

I think that is all nethalus is saying. She has pointed out a fact. 

I should point out that I would never cycle all in black. In fact I tend to have two contrasting colours on (i.e. black and red, black and blue etc). I don't think an all over black lycra suit would look good on me.....


----------



## domtyler (27 Dec 2007)

Just one point to Nethalus, you say that accidents happen when people don't look and manage to hit buses, cars, motorbikes etc., if people don't see these large objects do you really think that wearing day glo clothing is going to help in these circumstances?


----------



## gambatte (27 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Using the 'oh should pedestrians wear hi-viz' argument is pretty cheap. Comparing cyclists who (should be) on the road to pedestrians who flirt with the road is just silly. Anyway to some extent the argument is probably true for pedestrians as well, although to a lesser degree.



Disagree Mag.

pedestrians aren't held by rules like lane discipline. they are capable of quite fast acceleration, can be on the pavement one second and infront of you the next.


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> Disagree Mag.
> 
> pedestrians aren't held by rules like lane discipline. they are capable of quite fast acceleration, can be on the pavement one second and infront of you the next.



True, but drivers know how to deal with pedestrians. They come across them more often and are often pedestrians themselves. This isn't always the case with cyclists.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make was that contrasting colours do help. Often the benefit is small (sometimes very small), but not zero.


----------



## mickle (27 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> True, but drivers know how to deal with pedestrians. They come across them more often and are often pedestrians themselves. This isn't always the case with cyclists.
> 
> Anyway, the main point I was trying to make was that contrasting colours do help. Often the benefit is small (sometimes very small), but not zero.



Ever read 'Death on the Streets' Magnatom? One of the issues highlighted in the book is how the onus of responsibility for safety is transferred away from those responsible for the danger onto those most at risk. One common example is the erection of barriers to keep peds on the pavement and away from the danger posed by motor vehicles rather than removing the danger itself by slowing down the cars. Expecting vulnerable road-users to dress up like day-glo xmas trees moves responsibility away from the people actually causing the danger.


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

mickle said:


> Ever read 'Death on the Streets' Magnatom? One of the issues highlighted in the book is how the onus of responsibility for safety is transferred away from those responsible for the danger onto those most at risk. One common example is the erection of barriers to keep peds on the pavement and away from the danger posed by motor vehicles rather than removing the danger itself by slowing down the cars. Expecting vulnerable road-users to dress up like day-glo xmas trees moves responsibility away from the people actually causing the danger.



I haven't mickle but I can see where it is coming from. Absolutely the onus must be on all road users for their own safety and the safety of others. We should continue to try and educate drivers how to drive around cyclists etc. 

All I am saying with regards to wearing contrasting colours is that it does improve our safety (although sometimes very minimally). I am certainly not suggesting that we should HAVE to wear it, but that it can help. However, safe cycling technique, driver education etc have a much greater bearing on safety than any colour that we wear.

In an ideal world drivers would all be as aware of their surroundings as they should be. But they are human (sometimes a little below human) after all and concentration can wane. I can just understand why having contrasting colours on, in certain situations, could reduce your risk when another road user would not have seen you.

Of course this does not mean that the non-bright colour wearer bears any fault for not wearing said bright colours. But in certain situations it can help.

On a related note I personally don't buy the theory that because I wear a bright red top cycling that I take more risks. When I cycle, the last thing on my mind is what I am wearing


----------



## Brock (27 Dec 2007)

Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?



Mmmmm, it is possible that there could be an effect, but I doubt that the issue would ever enter a typical drivers mind!

On a sub-conscience level, maybe, but does that mean we should ban cyclists from wearing hi-vis ?!

Maybe it would be safer if we all cycled about with invisibility cloaks on. That way drivers would all have to be REALLY REALLY observant if they wanted to avoid hitting cyclists. They would have to look for disturbances in the surrounding air and ground. 

On second thoughts I'm not sure about this. This would provide justification for us cycling in the gutter. Our tyres would make more noise passing over the litter and glass, so they would have a better chance of working out where we were....... 


(My family has a collective bad cold at the moment, so sleep is severly lacking. This may explain my insane mutterings.....)


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

P.S. There goes the 500 post barrier......


----------



## gambatte (27 Dec 2007)

There are also environmental and lighting condition where wearing dark colours would be the best way of being seen.


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> There are also environmental and lighting condition where wearing dark colours would be the best way of being seen.



Indeed, which is why in a previous post I mentioned contrasting colours rather than bright (although I may have lapsed into saying bright). 

As I said previously I wear two different colours which reduces that issue, although I must admit that is not the reason I wear them. Now that I think of it though it is a good idea (which as I said probably makes little, but some difference).


----------



## Cab (27 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> All I am saying with regards to wearing contrasting colours is that it does improve our safety (although sometimes very minimally).



Does it really though? 

Is the balance between winding up motorists by being perceived as dayglo, lycra clad street warriors actually not tip things in the other direction? I mean, if I'm in primary position then in ordinary clothing I'm visible. Am I really significantly easier to see in dayglo? And if I'm not am I not just reinforcing the stereotype of the vulnerable but pushy bright coloured cyclist?


----------



## Cab (27 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?



Arguably, yes. But I would maintain that a bigger factor in getting you seen than what you wear is good road positioning. I'd make a case that the biggest disservice generally done by cyclists to other cyclists is the endemic problem of passive road positioning, reinforcing the perception that we're meant to be in the gutter. Next to that, I just can't get so interested in whether mototists get tetchy about us not wearing high-viz.


----------



## gambatte (27 Dec 2007)

Because we pass through different environments on our journeys. Should we change clothing several times?
Should we discourage green cars from travelling in rural environments?


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> Because we pass through different environments on our journeys. Should we change clothing several times?
> Should we discourage green cars from travelling in rural environments?



I'm not making any comments about what you or anyone else should wear!! Wear what you want! 

I generally wear some black and some colour. In some environments the black will be more visible in some the colour.


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Does it really though?
> 
> Is the balance between winding up motorists by being perceived as dayglo, lycra clad street warriors actually not tip things in the other direction? I mean, if I'm in primary position then in ordinary clothing I'm visible. Am I really significantly easier to see in dayglo? And if I'm not am I not just reinforcing the stereotype of the vulnerable but pushy bright coloured cyclist?



Yes.



Come on cab. How could wearing hi viz wind up a driver? How many drivers have you heard saying:
'_I hate those damn cyclists their colours just wind me up. And what's that with the hi-viz! I mean, it's as if they want me to see them or something. The other day I saw a cyclist who's colours all clashed it just made me fume!! And then there was the cyclist who had just had his teeth whitened. He kept smiling just to irritate me........._'


----------



## gambatte (27 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> I'm not making any comments about what you or anyone else should wear!! Wear what you want!




 I'll stop winding you Mag!!


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> I'll stop winding you Mag!!




Your alright! I quite enjoy it today. I'm in work knackered because the family isn't sleeping at night at the moment. I have work to do, but it involves setting something running and waiting for it to finish 15 minutes later. So I have to do something while I wait.

Cab seems to have taken the bait though......


----------



## gambatte (27 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Your alright! I quite enjoy it today. I'm in work knackered because the family isn't sleeping at night at the moment



Similar:- pregnant wife not sleeping well, and 6 year old, Mini Me No1 suffering with a dose of 'man flu'

Keep thinking of popping out on the bike, but it looks cold out there and I can think of lots of reasons to stop in


----------



## mickle (27 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?




I do believe this to be the case.


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Dec 2007)

On the Peds wearing hi-vi issue, there has been a big push over the last few years to cover school kids in company endorsed(Nationwide Building Soc. & Texaco for example)reflectors and hi-vi's. It doesn't look like compulsary hi-vi for peds is that far off in some situations.

The problem I see with hi-vi is that they are everywhere, Police officers, PCSO's, building sites, railway, highway, utility maintainance etc, that it is possible to get too used to them in your field of vision and not recognise them as a specific warning.

In answer to Brock, I can only think that one morning I woke and had aquired some common sense with regard to looking like Blackpool on a Bike.
A cyclist friend who was a nurse showed me some papers of the stats of head injury survival(at 30mph) apposed to those without helmets and I was convinced.
Like I've said, I don't enjoy the rigmerole and faff of getting garbed up to look like a nutter.
I have even had an incident where I was being chased at night by a driver in a Volvo estate(who I had given two fingers to for overtaking me on a roundabout), in this case I found it prudent to extinguish my lights, lose the hi-vi and hide me and the bike under a van for 20mins while they drove round looking for me and eventually gave up.

Well that's mangled my argument to pieces, dissect as you will......

T x


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

gambatte said:


> Similar:- pregnant wife not sleeping well, and 6 year old, Mini Me No1 suffering with a dose of 'man flu'
> 
> Keep thinking of popping out on the bike, but it looks cold out there and I can think of lots of reasons to stop in



Because of my man flu I decided that cycling in to work would not have been in my best interests, despite my urge to start purging some of the excesses of the past few days!


----------



## magnatom (27 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka,

I think that you probably provided a reasonable example of when it is ok to go without lights at night! I think you could have done with one of those visibility coats! 

I've just had an image in my head of some poor passer by walking past and seeing some legs and a bit of a bike hanging out from under a van. Poor soul probably thinks you had been run over and is traumatised to this very day...


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Dec 2007)

LOL, hadn't thought of that possibility! It was at about 2am and there were very few people around.

After the 20 mins of hiding under the van I figured it safe to emerge and head swiftly home. Minutes later I met the same car coming back the other way, beying for blood, and the chase continued around the grounds of a local Hospital for another hour until a Doctor, who had come out for a fag, saw what was happening, locked me in the building and called the police, who then took me home.

This event, which oddly enough only happened 2 months after the ped from off the bus incident(posted earlier), put me off cycling entirely for 5 years although I'm in my second year back in the saddle and feeling so much better for it.

My riding style, lid & hi-viz are really just things I've carried over from my 
days of motorbikes, stay visible and ride defencively.


T x


----------



## nethalus (27 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?



I wouldn't say it would make people lazy. Only a fool would not do there observational checks when driving. Unfortunately you know what they say about fools, one born every minute!!


----------



## nethalus (27 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Does it really though?
> 
> Is the balance between winding up motorists by being perceived as dayglo, lycra clad street warriors actually not tip things in the other direction? I mean, if I'm in primary position then in ordinary clothing I'm visible. Am I really significantly easier to see in dayglo? And if I'm not am I not just reinforcing the stereotype of the vulnerable but pushy bright coloured cyclist?



Is that really true though? Speaking from personal experience, and from no other, I find day glow on cyclists helps them stick out more from further away. Just because someone is wearing it wouldn't wind me up in the slightest. I think the sort of idiots it winds up are idiots who probably don't like cyclists full stop and are simply using them wearing something for their own saftey as an excuse. Even if you went cycling in a suit and tie these mongs would probably get wound up about it!!!


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Dec 2007)

I have never had anyone get wound up because I was wearing Hi-Viz, then again when dressed like a mobile disco some might have difficulty seeing anything else!

T x


----------



## domd1979 (27 Dec 2007)

No. 

Would you apply the same argument to highway gangs wearing hi-viz when working? Do staff working on the railway wearing hi-viz encourage train drivers to be lazy? 

Its not a matter of drivers being "lazy". Its recognising that certain colours, and reflective gear at night WILL make you more visible and more visible from further away. 



Brock said:


> Aren't cyclists who light themselves up like Christmas trees and smother themselves in Dayglo blouses doing the rest of us a disservice by encouraging drivers to be lazy in their observational checks?


----------



## domd1979 (27 Dec 2007)

The point made was that most buses now go round with headlights on at all times. The companies that have introduced this policy have seen a significant reduction in accidents. Logical conclusion = making something on the road more conspicuous (even though you'd think a bus would be pretty obvious) can help.




domtyler said:


> Just one point to Nethalus, you say that accidents happen when people don't look and manage to hit buses, cars, motorbikes etc., if people don't see these large objects do you really think that wearing day glo clothing is going to help in these circumstances?


----------



## nethalus (27 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> The point made was that most buses now go round with headlights on at all times. The companies that have introduced this policy have seen a significant reduction in accidents. Logical conclusion = making something on the road more conspicuous (even though you'd think a bus would be pretty obvious) can help.




Aye it's not 100% fool proof, but it does go a long way to help.


----------



## Cab (27 Dec 2007)

magnatom said:


> Come on cab. How could wearing hi viz wind up a driver?



Rather like that chap who did a study on what happened when he wore a helmet and found that motorists tended to overtake more closely. 

Part of the problem is how we're perceived; if we're seen as high-viz road warriors, brightly coloured inhabitants of the middle of the road it does seem to get more aggro from the worst kinds of motorists. Its certainly been my experience that I get more verbal if I'm wearing a high viz vest.


----------



## Cab (27 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> Is that really true though? Speaking from personal experience, and from no other, I find day glow on cyclists helps them stick out more from further away.



Its sticking out, being different, alongside being viewed as inferior road users (an all too common perception) that is the problem. High viz reinforces this perception. Is that really such a good thing?



> Just because someone is wearing it wouldn't wind me up in the slightest. I think the sort of idiots it winds up are idiots who probably don't like cyclists full stop and are simply using them wearing something for their own saftey as an excuse. Even if you went cycling in a suit and tie these mongs would probably get wound up about it!!!



Try going out on a bike in high viz, look competent, ride fast, see how much lip you get. Then go home, change into inappropriate clothes, ride a bit like a muppet, and then see how you're treated. Its my experience that the more competent, the more prepared you look, the more 'they' are likely to give you grief.


----------



## col (27 Dec 2007)

I think you will find,that riding primary all the time,is what gets the reactions.Hi viz and helmets dont.


----------



## Cab (27 Dec 2007)

col said:


> I think you will find,that riding primary all the time,is what gets the reactions.Hi viz and helmets dont.



Did you read the TRL report on drivers perception of cyclists? If you haven't do so. If its still online as a PDF it shouldn't be too hard to find. Simply being visibly 'different' is enough to get a negative response. Check also this (relating to helmets, but I hope you'll agree that the logic extends to high viz): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm

Riding in primary whenever its appropriate gets a few comments and bad reactions on the road. During summer, when the light is good, I tend not to worry about wearing anything too reflective, I just don't wear dark colours. And I'm seen, I'm visible. I'm not a religious wearer of reflective clothing on town streets in winter either, I'll pick a visible road position and good lights over such things any day. Generally I'll wear reflective strips in winter, or a bright yellow vest with strips on, but not always. 

If I get grief as a result of being in primary position then its quite clear that the buggers have seen me, that they've not been able to overtake dangerously close. But, strangely, it isn't _that_ frequent. 

So the question is, if I'm visible in primary (and I'm in their line of sight there) whats the advantage in wearing clothing that might wind them up further (and whether you accept it or not, the evidence is that setting ourselves apart more like that _does_ encourage bad behaviour from motorists)?


----------



## col (27 Dec 2007)

Its in my experience that i said that.A cyclist in primary,is seen to be purposely holding faster traffic up,thats what gets the reactions,whether its right or wrong,Hi viz and helmets are that common now,i dont suppose anyone bats an eyelid at them,for what they wear.

Even with the average nine inches less,it still makes about three and a half feet gap,left by the average vehicle?,Correct me if i see this wrong,but isnt that ample room anyway?


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Dec 2007)

*Saddles Giraffe in readiness*

I get it!

The basic idea is really simple, think about it, only ever cycle in primary position, always ahead of the traffic and without Hi-Viz you can then remain anonomous and invisible to all road users and in so doing avoid any molevolent overtures.

How could I have got this so wrong before?
To think I've only worn Hi-Vi in order to make me a clearer target!

Your favourite mobile Christmas Tree(tis the season after all),

T x


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Its in my experience that i said that.A cyclist in primary,is seen to be purposely holding faster traffic up,thats what gets the reactions,whether its right or wrong,Hi viz and helmets are that common now,i dont suppose anyone bats an eyelid at them,for what they wear.



High viz common? In every city and town I've ridden in, in every place I visit but don't ride too, I rekon its less than 10% of cyclists wearing such things. Ain't that common. 

As for a cyclist holding traffic up... Well, no. You're not delaying traffic by being in primary and _few_ motorists get upset by it, but that small number does matter. But the fact is that you're trading a safe location for irritating a small minority of road users; you're safer there because you're visible and close overtaking is hard, you're making people actually go around you as they're meant to do.

Which takes me back to the questions I put to you; are you familiar with the TRL report I put to you? If you're in a visible location and thinking your way through traffic by maintaining visible locations anyway, whats the advantage in wearing bright colours that (according to said report) do reinforce a negative view of cyclists?



> Even with the average nine inches less,it still makes about three and a half feet gap,left by the average vehicle?,Correct me if i see this wrong,but isnt that ample room anyway?



Where the heck do you get given three and a half feet of space by all of the overtaking vehicles when you're in secondary?


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> *Saddles Giraffe in readiness*
> 
> I get it!
> 
> ...



So no, don't consider the argument, don't look at the evidence put forward or the information cited, just make a smart arse crack.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer.

This is a bit of the report from the link you gave.


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer.
> 
> This is a bit of the report from the link you gave.



Its from the article about helmet use, which I used because it refers to cyclists being treated worse if they appear different or even just competent. Why are you using that to support an unrelated claim about road positioning?


----------



## domd1979 (28 Dec 2007)

Well, why not? After all, I thought this thread was specifically to do with the actions of a bus, all other things being irrelevant. Adopting your tack,all other points should be ignored should they not? 




Cab said:


> So no, don't consider the argument, don't look at the evidence put forward or the information cited, just make a smart arse crack.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Its recognising that certain colours, and reflective gear at night WILL make you more visible and more visible from further away.



The problem is that you don't need to be seen more and from further away. Normal clothes are just fine for being seen in time. You'll not be seen if the driver is not looking, and that's the problem that HiViz can't solve.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> The point made was that most buses now go round with headlights on at all times. The companies that have introduced this policy have seen a significant reduction in accidents. Logical conclusion = making something on the road more conspicuous (even though you'd think a bus would be pretty obvious) can help.




I believe this is incorrect. I saw a recent study on how DRL (daytime running lights) actually brought an increase in accident rates to motorcyclists.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> High viz common? In every city and town I've ridden in, in every place I visit but don't ride too, I rekon its less than 10% of cyclists wearing such things. Ain't that common.
> 
> As for a cyclist holding traffic up... Well, no. You're not delaying traffic by being in primary and _few_ motorists get upset by it, but that small number does matter. But the fact is that you're trading a safe location for irritating a small minority of road users; you're safer there because you're visible and close overtaking is hard, you're making people actually go around you as they're meant to do.
> 
> ...





Like i said,in my experience,i see a lot of hi viz on cyclists now,and more helmets too,i would say a lot more than 10% on viz vests,but i couldnt say by how much.but not on helmets,they havnt caught on as much it seems.


Whether primary is the right thing to do doesnt matter,but like it or not,when a cyclist is in the middle of the road,it does annoy drivers,they see it as unnecassary delay,and its that that causes reaction from drivers,not what we wear.

Any form of hi viz or bright colours do help to be seen,i dont understand how it cant help in some way?An accident a week or so ago,when a taxi pulled out into the side of a car,whos colour was dark brown,may have been avoided if the cars colour was brighter,the way it seemed was the taxi looked left before pulling out of a side road,but failed to notice the car that was nearly in front of him,the only thing that could explain this,is that the taxi driver looked left ,behind the car,Where he expected there might be something,and failed to notice it,due to its colour.The only thing that helped cause this ,is it seems ,the fact that the cars colour camoflaged it into the background,so making it less noticeable to the taxi.I know this is assumption,but i think its a fair assumption,when the car was just to the left of and nearly in front of the taxi as it pulled out,parked cars wont have helped,but i think a brighter coloured car would probably have been noticed.
My point is,on a bike,if we dont wear noticeable colours,and rely on being in,what we see as ,visible positions,then we are taking risks,because sometimes things can be right in front of us ,and they are less noticeable, when a driver is looking where they expect something to be,not where it actually is.So there has to be some advantage to more noticeable colours?


I thought that was the report in the link you gave,which is where i got the three and a half foot thing from?


----------



## domtyler (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Its in my experience that i said that.A cyclist in primary,is seen to be purposely holding faster traffic up,thats what gets the reactions,whether its right or wrong,Hi viz and helmets are that common now,i dont suppose anyone bats an eyelid at them,for what they wear.
> 
> Even with the average nine inches less,it still makes about three and a half feet gap,left by the average vehicle?,Correct me if i see this wrong,but isnt that ample room anyway?



Col, you are a bus driver first and a cyclist second, by your own admission.
This is why your preference is to cycle, when you cycle, in a submissive road position. You may get less hassle, but that is a direct consequence of the fact that your positioning just means that drivers are totally oblivious to your presence on the road, you may as well not be there and they will not consider you when they perform any kind of manoeuvre. You may well feel that you are safer like this and I sincerely hope that you never come to any harm on the roads, but the evidence clearly shows that people cycling using your style are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a motor vehicle.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> The problem is that you don't need to be seen more and from further away. Normal clothes are just fine for being seen in time. You'll not be seen if the driver is not looking, and that's the problem that HiViz can't solve.




If some one isnt looking,then no,it wont help,but people look where they expect something to be,or seem to,so if your noticed from further away,then its not as much of a surprise when you become closer,and the, i didnt realise he was there thing is less likely ?
Being more noticeable in the corner of someones eye,is i think,an aid to our safety.


----------



## domtyler (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> I believe this is incorrect. I saw a recent study on how DRL (daytime running lights) actually brought an increase in accident rates to motorcyclists.



The point was made from the perspective of the bus company I think you'll find Mikey. By employing DRL their buses are involved in fewer accidents, albeit at the expense of vulnerable road users, cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians.


----------



## domd1979 (28 Dec 2007)

The further away you can be seen the better. It gives drivers the chance to slow down in plenty of time, and more time to anticipate when they might be able to overtake safely. If I'm driving at night, and encounter a cyclist, the first thing I see is hi-viz if they're wearing it, before any lights they might have on their bike.




BentMikey said:


> The problem is that you don't need to be seen more and from further away. Normal clothes are just fine for being seen in time. You'll not be seen if the driver is not looking, and that's the problem that HiViz can't solve.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

The problem with that, Col, is that hiviz isn't called urban camouflage for nothing. It's so ubiquitous that people just ignore it in the corner of their eye, and also directly in their eye.

Something really unusual, like my recumbent, always gets looked at. It's far more effective than HiViz, but only because it's so unusual. If everyone rode recumbents, I wouldn't be impressed!


----------



## domd1979 (28 Dec 2007)

Really?




domtyler said:


> albeit at the expense of vulnerable road users, cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> The point was made from the perspective of the bus company I think you'll find Mikey. By employing DRL their buses are involved in fewer accidents, albeit at the expense of vulnerable road users, cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians.



You misunderstand I think. This was in relation to motorcyclists with DRL experiencing more accidents, i.e. that having DRL themselves, they then had more accidents.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> The further away you can be seen the better. It gives drivers the chance to slow down in plenty of time, and more time to anticipate when they might be able to overtake safely. If I'm driving at night, and encounter a cyclist, the first thing I see is hi-viz if they're wearing it, before any lights they might have on their bike.




There's no point in seeing someone so far away that it's long before you need to take any action. HiViz has no point when it only increases visibility in the far distance. Cyclists only need to be seen when they are approaching the interaction distance.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Col, you are a bus driver first and a cyclist second, by your own admission.
> This is why your preference is to cycle, when you cycle, in a submissive road position. You may get less hassle, but that is a direct consequence of the fact that your positioning just means that drivers are totally oblivious to your presence on the road, you may as well not be there and they will not consider you when they perform any kind of manoeuvre. You may well feel that you are safer like this and I sincerely hope that you never come to any harm on the roads, but the evidence clearly shows that people cycling using your style are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a motor vehicle.



I take a good secondary,and give way to other vehicles,or faster vehicles,i dont feel any more unsafe doing this,and i have never had conflict with other road users,in fact it seems that they are more helpful,when it is obvious i a m making an effort,however small,to not slow or deter other vehicles ,while im out there.I cycled for years,years ago,in the same way,and didnt have any problems with cars or buses,and i had never driven a bus then.When you say my style,i take it you mean the way i wont take primary in certain situations?
Then i have to agree,i wont,but i will if i feel it safe and non obstructive to do so.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> The problem with that, Col, is that hiviz isn't called urban camouflage for nothing. It's so ubiquitous that people just ignore it in the corner of their eye, and also directly in their eye.
> 
> Something really unusual, like my recumbent, always gets looked at. It's far more effective than HiViz, but only because it's so unusual. If everyone rode recumbents, I wouldn't be impressed!




A recumbent will get looked at more than a normal bike,but thats if you have been noticed in the first place.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> There's no point in seeing someone so far away that it's long before you need to take any action. HiViz has no point when it only increases visibility in the far distance. Cyclists only need to be seen when they are approaching the interaction distance.




I dont understand your reasoning here,the sooner your noticed,it doesnt matter how far away you are,the sooner your in the drivers mind ,surely that can only be a good thing?


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> A recumbent will get looked at more than a normal bike,but thats if you have been noticed in the first place.



It also gets noticed more often in the first place, although I'd be the first to accept that that's only my anecdotal experience. I think it's something to do with the lowness, the unusual leg movement, and it generally looking like some form of predator.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Dec 2007)

I wear hi-vi and I ride a recumbent, double safe!

Cab,
I have actually read the relevent info regarding the differing attitudes of drivers to cyclists wearing helmets and hi-vi and to those who are not and my opinion is that I choose to be as visible as I can be.

My safety on the road is my own responsability first and foremost, and my being able to be seen where so many others choose not to is my perogative.
Smart crack maybe but I merely tried to inject some humour to a thread that keeps getting bogged down with langiud, statistical rhetoric.

T x


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> I dont understand your reasoning here,the sooner your noticed,it doesnt matter how far away you are,the sooner your in the drivers mind ,surely that can only be a good thing?



My point is that it's a bit like noticing the moon - it might be very visible, but it's so far away it's not necessary. You only need to notice traffic and other items once they get into your interaction zone.


----------



## domtyler (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> You misunderstand I think. This was in relation to motorcyclists with DRL experiencing more accidents, i.e. that having DRL themselves, they then had more accidents.



Oops, sorry, thought you meant on buses.

So DRL on bikes leads to more accidents? How does that work then?


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> My point is that it's a bit like noticing the moon - it might be very visible, but it's so far away it's not necessary. You only need to notice traffic and other items once they get into your interaction zone.



Its the interaction zone you mention im having problems with BM? Where does it start from, as soon as your seen,or is there a distance you have in mind?As far as im concerned,the sooner i know whats around me,or ahead,the better.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Oops, sorry, thought you meant on buses.
> 
> So DRL on bikes leads to more accidents? How does that work then?



Yes, I was a bit surprised by that too. I think they speculated it was due to lights being harder to judge for speed and distance than the motorbike alone, and that the lights "hid" the motorbike.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Its the interaction zone you mention im having problems with BM? Where does it start from, as soon as your seen,or is there a distance you have in mind?As far as im concerned,the sooner i know whats around me,or ahead,the better.



There's no point in knowing about traffic much before it reaches your interaction zone. By interaction zone I mean where a vehicle is likely to need to interact with you (and v. versa) in some way. This may mean enough time to plan an overtake, to negotiate at a junction, or even just to communicate with the other driver/rider. When someone is outside this zone, then they may as well not exist as far as you're concerned.

OK, I can think of one exception to that, and that's knowing about traffic problems such as queues, accidents, and road works, so you can plan to reroute around them, but since they are normally out of view as well as out of your interaction zone when you'd want to know about them, in terms of this hiviz debate they are out of scope.


----------



## domtyler (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> There's no point in knowing about traffic much before it reaches your interaction zone. By interaction zone I mean where a vehicle is likely to need to interact with you (and v. versa) in some way. This may mean enough time to plan an overtake, to negotiate at a junction, or even just to communicate with the other driver/rider. When someone is outside this zone, then they may as well not exist as far as you're concerned.
> 
> OK, I can think of one exception to that, and that's knowing about traffic problems such as queues, accidents, and road works, so you can plan to reroute around them, but since they are normally out of view as well as out of your interaction zone when you'd want to know about them, in terms of this hiviz debate they are out of scope.



I think I have an issue here, surely a good driver/road user could be described as one who looks far up the road, building a picture and anticipating any hazards along the way. Your logic suggests that it is okay to only look a very short distance up the road.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Dec 2007)

The theory part of the modern driving test has a section called the Hazard Perception Test, this is used to guage a new drivers ability to foresee potential hazards on the road ahead.

I believe that it is expected of a driver to be scanning the road ahead for as far a distance as traffic and conditions allow.


T x


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> The theory part of the modern driving test has a section called the Hazard Perception Test, this is used to guage a new drivers ability to foresee potential hazards on the road ahead.
> 
> I believe that it is expected of a driver to be scanning the road ahead for as far a distance as traffic and conditions allow.
> 
> ...



It does,and it helps you see something that might transpire,due to something coming from another road,what may be ahead,and we are talking from somewhere in the distance too,its all about having the knowledge of something that doesnt effect you yet,but could possibly.


When someone is outside this zone, then they may as well not exist as far as you're concerned.


This is worrying,Having an idea of what is where,it doesnt matter how far away,if you can see it,it could effect you.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Dec 2007)

In a bizarre twist of fate I started the process of obtaining my driving licence but gave up before I got any further than taking my theory test.
(I previously lived a precarious existance being a cage hating car mechanic without a driving licence.)
Even after having been a cyclist for years and thinking I read the road pretty well, I found the Hazard Percetion Test quite hard and a good eye opener.

T x


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Whether primary is the right thing to do doesnt matter,but like it or not,when a cyclist is in the middle of the road,it does annoy drivers,they see it as unnecassary delay,and its that that causes reaction from drivers,not what we wear.



So you're just going to flat out ignore the TRL report that stated the contrary?


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Cab,
> I have actually read the relevent info regarding the differing attitudes of drivers to cyclists wearing helmets and hi-vi and to those who are not and my opinion is that I choose to be as visible as I can be.



Thats more like it.

Not an unreasonable position, considering the tangled data available to us.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> So you're just going to flat out ignore the TRL report that stated the contrary?




No im not ignoring it,i havnt even read it yet ,to tell you the truth.But i think safety is a relative thing,what i may see as safe,you may not,but im happy to go on as i am,feeling that im doing what i can to make myself as safe as possible,and others too.


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> No im not ignoring it,i havnt even read it yet ,to tell you the truth.But i think safety is a relative thing,what i may see as safe,you may not,but im happy to go on as i am,feeling that im doing what i can to make myself as safe as possible,and others too.



You're not really doing a good job for your own safety if you don't consider the available evidence though. Like it or lump it, the standard road position you're taking is less safe than you need to be, and like it or lump it the perception of cyclists is not improved by us being more visibly 'different', and you _should_ consider the evidence and balance your choice to use high-viz against other factors.

You say you ride a good secondary; how far from the _edge of the gutter_ is your _elbow_?


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You're not really doing a good job for your own safety if you don't consider the available evidence though. Like it or lump it, the standard road position you're taking is less safe than you need to be, and like it or lump it the perception of cyclists is not improved by us being more visibly 'different', and you _should_ consider the evidence and balance your choice to use high-viz against other factors.
> 
> You say you ride a good secondary; how far from the _edge of the gutter_ is your _elbow_?





Come on cab,lets not get into dissecting everything.Im no where near the kerb,unless i want to be,iv never been a near miss by a passing vehicle to the extent that i felt unsafe,i always look well ahead,and around at every opertunity,i let vehicles through or out or pass,because they are faster,and i see no reason to hold them up.If i need to go faster,i take the car,and when im driving the car/bus,i do exactly the same,or try to.If because i dont read a report that someone has compiled,makes me a bad driver,then so be it,but i think common sense,as well as defensive driving,has contributed to me not having any accidents,or run ins,with others,in a looong time.I dont intend changing to a different cycling style,and finding i get abuse and grief from other road users,because im exercising some rights,whjich in my opinion,cause more problems some of the time,than dont.


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Come on cab,lets not get into dissecting everything.Im no where near the kerb,unless i want to be,iv never been a near miss by a passing vehicle to the extent that i felt unsafe,



Mmmh hm. Well, either you feel safe with unsafe close overtaking or you ride on a different road network to the one I know.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Mmmh hm. Well, either you feel safe with unsafe close overtaking or you ride on a different road network to the one I know.





I wouldnt say my road network is much different from anyones?What makes you say im happy with dangerous close overtaking?


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> I wouldnt say my road network is much different from anyones?What makes you say im happy with dangerous close overtaking?



Because to _never_ have anyone _ever_ pass closer than in comfortable either implies hardly ever cycling, an incredible lifelong spate of incredible luck, or extremely lenient definition of a safe overtaking distance.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Because to _never_ have anyone _ever_ pass closer than in comfortable either implies hardly ever cycling, an incredible lifelong spate of incredible luck, or extremely lenient definition of a safe overtaking distance.




I used to cycle all the time,since i was a nipper,till i was in my thirties,had a few years off it,then back on it,but now not that often granted.Luck can be a factor i suppose,but what is your definition of a safe distance for vehicles passing you?If it doesnt unsettle me,or shock the living daylights out of me,i dont see how it could have been too close?Im not saying iv never had close passing vehicles,i may have worded it wrong before,but definitely not to the extent that made me feel unsafe,or in danger.


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> but what is your definition of a safe distance for vehicles passing you?



If, at even slow speed, I could reach out and touch the vehicle, it has passed too close. In an ordinary lane the car overtaking should be comforably over on the other side of the road. If not, the driver overtaking has given less room than he would a car he's overtaking and has passed too closely. Practically, whether I'm in primary or secondary position, anything less than 1m from my outside elbow is murderously close, preferable would be 2m.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> I think I have an issue here, surely a good driver/road user could be described as one who looks far up the road, building a picture and anticipating any hazards along the way. Your logic suggests that it is okay to only look a very short distance up the road.




That would depend on how big you personally would define "interaction zone". For me, I don't need a cyclist to be wearing hiviz to spot him/her as far ahead as you need to be planning, and I don't believe any other driver needs that either.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> If, at even slow speed, I could reach out and touch the vehicle, it has passed too close. In an ordinary lane the car overtaking should be comforably over on the other side of the road. If not, the driver overtaking has given less room than he would a car he's overtaking and has passed too closely. Practically, whether I'm in primary or secondary position, anything less than 1m from my outside elbow is murderously close, preferable would be 2m.




About three and a half feet is a decent gap,im in agreement with you.I think anything near seven feet is not practical,in most situations,due to raod widths and other things.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

On this issue, Cab's right I'm afraid. Col, you're adopting the less than ideal approach. Just because your experience lets you get away with it, doesn't make your approach as good as it could be.


----------



## domtyler (28 Dec 2007)

Let's get one thing straight, if something makes you "feel" safer, it is not necessarily actually doing so. It is far more likely to make you less safe because of the risk compensation factor. Some people need to rely more on facts and hard logic rather than their feelings which may end up letting them down.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Let's get one thing straight, if something makes you "feel" safer, it is not necessarily actually doing so. It is far more likely to make you less safe because of the risk compensation factor. Some people need to rely more on facts and hard logic rather than their feelings which may end up letting them down.




Im not saying my feelings dictate my riding,im saying i have not been made to feel in danger by cars being too close to me as they pass.Im sure it will happen at some point,but up until now,i havnt.


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Im not saying my feelings dictate my riding,im saying i have not been made to feel in danger by cars being too close to me as they pass.Im sure it will happen at some point,but up until now,i havnt.



Yet demonstrably you feel safe with cars passing closer than is safe; three and a half feet is, at any decent pace at all, too close. Your definition of safe overtaking distance is poor.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Let's get one thing straight, if something makes you "feel" safer, it is not necessarily actually doing so. It is far more likely to make you less safe because of the risk compensation factor. Some people need to rely more on facts and hard logic rather than their feelings which may end up letting them down.



Exactly! Like the ferociously powerful brakes on my recumbent - all I end up doing is going faster and braking later.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Well if it an unsafe distance,i stand corrected,but it has not shaken me,and iv had no instances with it yet.


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Well if it an unsafe distance,i stand corrected,but it has not shaken me,and iv had no instances with it yet.



When driving, you do give cyclists the kind of clearance that I've referred to (i.e. something in the 2m region), don't you?


----------



## domtyler (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Well if it an unsafe distance,i stand corrected,but it has not shaken me,and iv had no instances with it yet.



Anecdotal, irrelevant. Collisions are still mercifully rare events, you may be able to go for a hundred years and never have one, even cycling in the gutter. It is the statistics that show that you are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured cycling like that.

As long as you accept that and admit that you are prepared to sacrifice a little of your safety in order to avoid any kind of confrontation with impatient car drivers then all is well. You are putting the convenience of strangers driving cars above your own life.


----------



## domtyler (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> When driving, you do give cyclists the kind of clearance that I've referred to (i.e. something in the 2m region), don't you?



No, he feels that it is safe to only leave one foot at anything less than seventy.


----------



## nethalus (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> My point is that it's a bit like noticing the moon - it might be very visible, but it's so far away it's not necessary. You only need to notice traffic and other items once they get into your interaction zone.



Don't know if you drive BentMikey, but when driving, particularily if you are in charge of a large vehicle we're always told to look as far ahead on the road as you can see. That way you are prepared for approaching hazards.
When driving you have to have eyes everwhere and are constantly asking yourself things, like is the woman with the pushchair 300 yards ahead about to try cross the road? Is that cyclist a few hundred yards ahead who keeps looking round preparing to make a turn? Are them parked cars far up ahead going to cause me any problems when I reach them? Is there anyone approaching that zebra crossing up ahead?
This is one reason why driving is mentally knackering. Just because something is far up the road does not mean it should be ignored. Traveling at 30,40 or 50 mph it's not going to be long before you reach the potential hazard, and if you haven't spotted it already and prepared you could end up in a pickle!


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> When driving, you do give cyclists the kind of clearance that I've referred to (i.e. something in the 2m region), don't you?




If im passing a cyclist,ill always give as much room as i can,sometimes over the other side of the road,sometimes not,but if i cant pass safely,i wont pass.Thats in my car too.
Do you ever have a debate,where you dont introduce other things,or dissect everything?


----------



## Cab (28 Dec 2007)

col said:


> If im passing a cyclist,ill always give as much room as i can,sometimes over the other side of the road,sometimes not,but if i cant pass safely,i wont pass.Thats in my car too.



Now that you've found out that your definition of a safe distance to overtake isn't really as far as it should be, will you be passing further away? 

Oh, and except for really wide roads (where theres room for two lanes) you really _must_ cross on to the other side to overtake a cyclist.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Now that you've found out that your definition of a safe distance to overtake isn't really as far as it should be, will you be passing further away?
> 
> Oh, and except for really wide roads (where theres room for two lanes) you really _must_ cross on to the other side to overtake a cyclist.




read my post for the answer?Your either being sarcastic,or having a laugh.What are you on about when you say my definition of a safe distance isnt as far as it should be,and am i passing further?where have i said i dont?I said it hasnt worried me when others pass me.

I meant the other lane,for oncoming vehicles,if they are not coming towards me that is.(thought id say that,in case you start dissecting)


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2007)

Nethalus, if you see my previous post on the topic, that stuff is all in your interaction zone. You don't need hiviz to be able to see a cyclist there.


----------



## Terminator (28 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Nethalus, if you see my previous post on the topic, that stuff is all in your interaction zone. You don't need hiviz to be able to see a cyclist there.




Depends on how good the motorists eyesight is.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Yet demonstrably you feel safe with cars passing closer than is safe; three and a half feet is, at any decent pace at all, too close. Your definition of safe overtaking distance is poor.




You really assume a lot dont you?I am talking about when others pass me on my bike,what are you hinting at?Oh i forgot,you twist meanings and then throw hints, or in a roundabout 
way insults at people dont you.Ill repeat this for your benefit,I will leave as much space as i can,going onto the other side of the road sometimes,and sometimes i cant,but IF ITS NOT SAFE,I WONT PASS you will obviously come back and say im doing something wrong,then say im bad/poor/dangerous or at least hint it,so really i dont know why im trying to explain myself to you,especailly when all i said was that i havnt been frightened,or made to feel in danger,when im passed by vehicles.Or are you going to go off on another tangent,and try to pick me to bits on how many candle power my lights are,and that im a poor cyclist or driver because of it.Oh hang on,you can have a go at me ,because i actually dont mind giving way to faster ,bigger vehicles,and you can go on to say how dangerous a cyclist this makes me,because i obviously dont have a grasp on my cycling rights,which in the knock on effect ,will cause other cyclists to be put in danger,because i choose to give way,instead of sticking to my guns,because i have the right to.Yes your right Cab,im a terrible cyclist,a danger to all and sundry,i had better not bother cycling anymore,because i dont want to be the cause of an accident.Or am i barking up the wrong tree,and you want to pick me to bits on the type of oil i use on my chain,because it might gunge up and cause a bad gear shift,which in turn will make me wobble,and this then causes a cyclist behind me to swerve ect ect,christ,i didnt realise how bad and dangerous a cyclist i was.I think i should thank you cab,not only have you saved me from self harm,but probably harming others too,because im obviously very poor at overtaking cyclists,and my perception of distance is atrotious.


----------



## domtyler (28 Dec 2007)

Come on Col, don't take it personally. You seem to be getting emotionally involved again when this is just a 'debate' about road safety on an internet cycling forum between strangers.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

domtyler said:


> Come on Col, don't take it personally. You seem to be getting emotionally involved again when this is just a 'debate' about road safety on an internet cycling forum between strangers.



Im just frustrated that cab continually assumes things,then calls you for something that really doesnt have anything to do with what your origionally talking about,for example,i dont feel threatened when cars pass me,but according to cab,that means i have poor distance judgment when i pass cyclists?There are others,but i cant be bothered going looking for them,suffice to say,cab is either purposely winding me and others up,or he is a troll,going on his description,again in the past hinting as ussual.


----------



## Terminator (28 Dec 2007)

That's normal on here col.


----------



## col (28 Dec 2007)

Terminator said:


> That's normal on here col.




I have noticed it is for cab,and one or two who join him in his name calling and twisting things.


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

col said:


> read my post for the answer?Your either being sarcastic,or having a laugh.What are you on about when you say my definition of a safe distance isnt as far as it should be,and am i passing further?where have i said i dont?I said it hasnt worried me when others pass me.
> 
> I meant the other lane,for oncoming vehicles,if they are not coming towards me that is.(thought id say that,in case you start dissecting)



Yes, I also mean the other lane, for oncoming vehicles.

I can't make this any simpler for you; if you're overtaking a bicycle, on pretty much any normal road, and you don't cross in to the other lane, then you're overtaking too close. You've said that you sometimes cross in to the other lane; is it just on roads with really wide lanes that you don't do so then? Are you normally driving on really wide laned roads?

If you are cycling in a position such that you're making it possible to overtake closely without crossing into the other lane, then you're riding in a position more submissive even than a good secondary position. Secondary position is out of the gutter, no closer than a foot and a half out. You still have to be gone around in that position, a vehicle passing safely still has to go into the other lane on nearly all roads.

You feel it is safe to be overtaken by about 1m (think you said three and a half feet); I'm saying, and others have said, that at most speeds thats a very slim bare minimum. Your definition of safe overtaking is too lenient, that ain't a safe distance. If you're overtaking bikes as closely as you're happy being overtaken, _stop doing it_.


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

col said:


> You really assume a lot dont you?I am talking about when others pass me on my bike,what are you hinting at?Oh i forgot,you twist meanings and then throw hints, or in a roundabout
> way insults at people dont you.Ill repeat this for your benefit,I will leave as much space as i can,going onto the other side of the road sometimes,and sometimes i cant,but IF ITS NOT SAFE,I WONT PASS you will obviously come back and say im doing something wrong,then say im bad/poor/dangerous or at least hint it,so really i dont know why im trying to explain myself to you,especailly when all i said was that i havnt been frightened,or made to feel in danger,when im passed by vehicles.



You feel safe being overtaken more closely than is appropriate. Or, in other words, the distance you feel safe being overtaken is too close. Do you overtake that close, yes or no?

You've also said that you sometimes cross on to the other lane to overtake; really, it should be your norm that you overtake using the other lane unless a cycle has moved aside to give you extra room to pass, as overtaking three feet or so from the bike _is too close_. Do you overtake as closely as you've said you're happy being overtaken, yes or no?

(remainder of incoherent rant cut, unread).


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Im just frustrated that cab continually assumes things,then calls you for something that really doesnt have anything to do with what your origionally talking about,for example,i dont feel threatened when cars pass me,but according to cab,that means i have poor distance judgment when i pass cyclists?



No, it was phrased as a question. You've said that you don't think that such close overtaking is too close, so I've put it to you that it is important to take a step back and assess whether you're asking others to live by your own (erroneous) assumption. Fair question. Answer it please.



> There are others,but i cant be bothered going looking for them,suffice to say,cab is either purposely winding me and others up,or he is a troll,going on his description,again in the past hinting as ussual.



No one hinted anything; if you're overtaking that closely then you're endangering cyclists. In encouraging such close overtaking when you're on your bike you are, for no real gain, increasing your own risk. We know you're doing the latter, and to be honest I don't care so much. It follows though that you should assess whether you're overtaking as closely as you're happy being overtaken, and your comment about 'sometimes' crossing in to the other lane does imply otherwise. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

I note that you haven't actually answered that question, despite multiple rants about being asked it.


----------



## col (29 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> No, it was phrased as a question. You've said that you don't think that such close overtaking is too close, so I've put it to you that it is important to take a step back and assess whether you're asking others to live by your own (erroneous) assumption. Fair question. Answer it please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I didnt answer it because as usual,you assumed ,and didnt even know the answer to it,before passing judgment.Your insulting way with words,is enough to try the patience of a saint.And all your ranting about wether i leave enough room while overtaking,is based on your wrong assumption,and you grilling me on that very question,is making something out of nothing,as usual,just like your excuse of,if your overtaking too closely,and you hinted nothing?well if you tell me my judgement is poor ,on only your assumption that i dont leave enough space when i pass a cyclist,what else would you call it?actually i was wrong,it wasnt a hint,you made the statement,on nothing more than your own opinion.Your obviously trolling here,what other reason would there be for your so detailed interogation type questions,?

Oh i forgot to point out,that i only pass if it s safe too.And as someone who has driven probably more hours on busy roads,than you have, as well as doing it for a living,i feel im slightly more clued up on what would be safe and not safe,to do in a vehicle,when approaching slower vehicles. Could you tell me what your qualifications are,as to why you seem to feel able to question me in this manner?


And i have only said i havnt been scared or felt in danger at being passed ,also that three and a half feet,was from your link.And i have been passed probably that close,but not felt threatened by it,its reality,a lot of cars do pass that close,if you cant deal with reality,then you shouldnt be there.
Again,list your qualifications,please?

And a safe pass to me is half a lane between me and the bike,depending on the situation.But then im probably wrong there too.


----------



## col (29 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Yes, I also mean the other lane, for oncoming vehicles.
> 
> I can't make this any simpler for you; if you're overtaking a bicycle, on pretty much any normal road, and you don't cross in to the other lane, then you're overtaking too close. You've said that you sometimes cross in to the other lane; is it just on roads with really wide lanes that you don't do so then? Are you normally driving on really wide laned roads?
> 
> ...




If your as much of an peanut as you seem to be,give yourself a wipe,cos your full of it.


----------



## tdr1nka (29 Dec 2007)

I'm an honest British cyclist and choose to ride with one foot on the pavement at all times.

All overtaking should be done with every respect to other road users as should the exchanges on this forum?

Cab, I again have to point out that philibuster of such nagging and Titanic proportions based on what is only twisted assumption alone, gets right on peoples tits.

You are in sight of the video camera mounted on the head of my trusty Giraffe................

T x


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

col said:


> I didnt answer it because as usual,you assumed ,and didnt even know the answer to it,before passing judgment.



Mhhh hm. I asked you a question, you didn't answer. I didn't imply that you do things a certain way, I said that if you overtake as you are happy to be overtaken then your're doing it wrong.

Remember, you said:


> About three and a half feet is a decent gap



Do you pass cyclists that close? If you do, _you are overtaking too close_. You've said there thats a 'decent gap'; do you pass cyclists that close, _yes or no_?



> Your insulting way with words,is enough to try the patience of a saint.



Despite considerable provocation I have not insulted you.



> And all your ranting about wether i leave enough room while overtaking,is based on your wrong assumption,and you grilling me on that very question,is making something out of nothing,as usual,just like your excuse of,if your overtaking too closely,and you hinted nothing?



Tiresome. 

You are happy to be overtaken with a wee bit over three feet of room. Do you thus overtake cyclists that closely, yes or no?



> well if you tell me my judgement is poor



I have told you that your judgement is poor based on your cycling position. I have _asked_ how close you pass cyclists. Answer.



> ,on only your assumption that i dont leave enough space when i pass a cyclist,what else would you call it?actually i was wrong,it wasnt a hint,you made the statement,on nothing more than your own opinion.Your obviously trolling here,what other reason would there be for your so detailed interogation type questions,?



That doesn't even make sense as a set of statements; it doesn't follow from what you've been asked in any way, and in itself its pretty much meaningless.



> Oh i forgot to point out,that i only pass if it s safe too.



You've said that before.

Do you pass as closely as you (erroenously) feel safe being overtaken, i.e. about three and a bit feet? Do you overtake without crossing on to the other lane much of the time (you have previously claimed that you do; thats _too close_)?



> And as someone who has driven probably more hours on busy roads,than you have, as well as doing it for a living,i feel im slightly more clued up on what would be safe and not safe,to do in a vehicle,when approaching slower vehicles. Could you tell me what your qualifications are,as to why you seem to feel able to question me in this manner?



My qualification is that I'm _right_, nothing more. Don't need any more, truth be told; if you're overtaking as closely as you claim to be happy being overtaken then you could have a Ph.D. in overtaking and still be wrong. 

(again, further ranting cut).

You claim to overtake safely. Bottom line; how close is that?


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> Cab, I again have to point out that philibuster of such nagging and Titanic proportions based on what is only twisted assumption alone, gets right on peoples tits.



Go actually read what he's written, the text that I'm responding to.


----------



## tdr1nka (29 Dec 2007)

BINGO!

You have, like TOTALLY, assumed that I haven't read the postings, I've read them and I have seen you disect every every to the level of sub atomic particals. 

Cab, I did, and I have read the texts you are responding to and I again have to point out that philibuster of such nagging and Titanic proportions based on what is only twisted assumption alone, gets right on peoples tits.

T x


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> BINGO!
> 
> You have, like TOTALLY, assumed that I haven't read the postings, I've read them and I have seen you disect every every to the level of sub atomic particals.



Yet you choose to answer in a way quite unrelated to whats being discussed.



> Cab, I did, and I have read the texts you are responding to and I again have to point out that philibuster of such nagging and Titanic proportions based on what is only twisted assumption alone, gets right on peoples tits.
> 
> T x



For a start, look up the word 'filibuster'. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Furthermore, if you're playing no part in anything being discussed, why are you even commenting?


----------



## tdr1nka (29 Dec 2007)

"A filibuster, or "talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place."

EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT!
You assume I'm am not as literate as I think I am?
Again another grand assumption from Cab, so I shall assume that you're actually only pulling me up on my spelling.

You Sir are fatuous poltroon!


T x


----------



## col (29 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Mhhh hm. I asked you a question, you didn't answer. I didn't imply that you do things a certain way, I said that if you overtake as you are happy to be overtaken then your're doing it wrong.
> 
> Remember, you said:
> 
> ...





Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.It wouldnt be safe,if i tried to measure it as i passed,so i cant give you feet and inches,even though,that is what you seem to require.
Your qualifications are because your right?,mmm custer thought he was right too.
And that increases my thought, that i was right about you,you are definitely going to need a family pack of toilet rolls.


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.



That you have yet to be hit by someone passing closer than that does not mean that it is a safe distance to pass someone. You can, thankfully, go a lifetime without being hit, but make no mistake _close overtaking, and behaviour that encourages close overtaking, increases your risk on the roads_.



> It wouldnt be safe,if i tried to measure it as i passed,so i cant give you feet and inches,even though,that is what you seem to require.



So, lets get this straight. You believe it is okay for motorists to overtake _even closer_ than three feet or so. You don't actually know how closely to overtake cyclists, but you definitely overtake safely... 

Doesn't add up. You've incorrectly defined a safe distance for overtaking, you've said you usually overtake without going on to the other side of the road, and you're in charge of a _bus_.

You really, really should reassess what you think a safe overtaking distance is, because if as it appears you're passing as close as you're happy to be overtaken, then you're increasing the risk to others on the road. Simply put, its bad motoring.



> Your qualifications are because your right?,mmm custer thought he was right too.



Like I've said, none of that comes in to it. You can claim whatever qualifications you like, passing that close is not acceptable.

Don't take my word for it. Have a look at this handy illustration in the highway code:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314




> And that increases my thought, that i was right about you,you are definitely going to need a family pack of toilet rolls.



Okay, after pages of abuse from you, _now_ I'll start surmising that the reason you've been so evasive is because you, like far too many road users, do not believe that you shoudl have to obey the rules of the road and give cyclists as much room as you're requested to do in the highway code. You think that overtaking more closely than that is safe. I'm afraid you are quite simply wrong.

Note, it has taken _pages_ of mindless abuse from you, in response to polite questions, before I've put that point to you. As the trickle feed of admissions of bad roadcraft has continued from you though, I think its safe to say that now.


----------



## col (29 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> That you have yet to be hit by someone passing closer than that does not mean that it is a safe distance to pass someone. You can, thankfully, go a lifetime without being hit, but make no mistake _close overtaking, and behaviour that encourages close overtaking, increases your risk on the roads_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Mmm i dont know where you got it from,that i think its ok for drivers to pass closer than three feet,?please show me how you came to this assumption?

Also ,what makes you think i dont know how close to overtake?please show again.


I said i sometimes dont go on the other side of the road,not usually,your at it again arnt you?

Again,how does it appear i overtake,as i have been overtaken? please show again

Your right,passing as close as you are assuming,is bad and dangerous.

Also,where do you get the information,that i dont abide by the rules of the road?please confirm with proof.

Again cab,show me where the trickle feed of bad roadmanship is?please do.

Im actually looking forward to your response this time.


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Mmm i dont know where you got it from,that i think its ok for drivers to pass closer than three feet,?please show me how you came to this assumption?



Its like you're completely unaware of what you're saying. You initially referred to three and a half feet as a distance you're happy to be overtaken by. You then said:



> Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.



So, you're always overtaken by closer to three feet... Don't you actually read as you type?



> Also ,what makes you think i dont know how close to overtake?please show again.



You also don't read what _I'm_ writing. You said:


> Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.It wouldnt be safe,if i tried to measure it as i passed,so i cant give you feet and inches



And I commented on the fact that you don't know how far you pass cycles by. Or, in other words, your definition of 'safe' being incorrect (less than three and a half feet now!) all we have to go on is that you claim to pass safely, but thats really, _really_ far too close. I backed that up with reference to the highway code. 



> I said i sometimes dont go on the other side of the road,not usually,your at it again arnt you?



What you actually said was:


> If im passing a cyclist,ill always give as much room as i can,sometimes over the other side of the road,sometimes not



Worse than that:


> going onto the other side of the road sometimes,and sometimes i cant



Or, in other words, you sometimes pass a cyclist without using the other side of the road, which is almost invariably _too close_. I've then given you at least four opportunities to clarify that, and you have failed to do so, instead choosing to reassert the claim that close overtaking (three and a bit feet or so) is okay.

So, clarify. When you overtake cyclists without going on to the other side of the road, how much space do you leave? Do you pass as closely as you are willing to be passed, _yes or no_? If you cannot overtake without leaving a good gap, say, five feet or so (see illustration as shown in the highway code), do you wait until you can or do you pass more closely than that? The second quote from you above implies that you'll pass more closely than you ideally would if you can't pass on to the other side of the road. Is that true?



> Again,how does it appear i overtake,as i have been overtaken? please show again



Still unaware of what you've actually said?

I can't spell it out any more simply for you. You've stated that three feet and a bit is safe. You say you overtake 'safely'. Do you overtake three and a bti feet from a bike, _yes or no_? 

Do you overtake bikes without going on to the other side of the road? Unless there is room _within your lane_ to pass a bike and give the same amount of room as you ideally should, then the correct approach is not to overtake. You've said that if you can't go into the other lane you still overtake; please explain how you're doing that without going too close to the cyclist.



> Your right,passing as close as you are assuming,is bad and dangerous.



So why are you arguing that closer overtaking is safe? Why are you now contradicting yourself?



> Also,where do you get the information,that i dont abide by the rules of the road?please confirm with proof.
> 
> Again cab,show me where the trickle feed of bad roadmanship is?please do.
> 
> Im actually looking forward to your response this time.



Its all there laid out for you; unless you're going to now contradict multiple statements of your own its clear as day.

Are you now going to reassess how close you pass cycles, yes or no?


----------



## Cab (29 Dec 2007)

tdr1nka said:


> "A filibuster, or "talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place."
> 
> EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT!
> You assume I'm am not as literate as I think I am?



You mean, you know what filibuster means and you still used it? I apologies for implying a lack of literacy. Perhaps you do know what it means, you're just using it in an entirely silly context.



> Again another grand assumption from Cab, so I shall assume that you're actually only pulling me up on my spelling.
> 
> You Sir are fatuous poltroon!
> 
> ...



Nope, not just on your spelling, pulling you up on such entirely irrelevent posts.


----------



## yenrod (29 Dec 2007)

nethalus said:


> There was a bus driver pulling away from a bus stop that has a short bus and cycle lane. As the bus was pulling away from the stop a cyclist was about to try and overtake the bus, they had just got level with the rear of it. The cyclist shouted "Oi thanks mate" as the bus continued to move. So the bus driver opened the cab window and stuck twos up at the cyclist before accelerating away. Do you think this was bad of the bus driver?



EASY, get the reg - ring company up = job solved !


----------



## col (29 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Its like you're completely unaware of what you're saying. You initially referred to three and a half feet as a distance you're happy to be overtaken by. You then said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






No,i said it hasnt scared me to be overtaken that close.

I also said that three and a half feet is a fair gap.with a question mark.

Iv never said, i was always overtaken at closer to three feet.

How do you know what i pass, as a safe pass space?your assuming again,when did i say that it was safe to pass at less than three and a half feet?

Iv never said it s ok to pass at three and a half feet.Iv never said im happy about it,i said it hasnt scared me.

Yes i have sometimes passed a cyclist,with out going on the other side of the road,but only when its safe to do so,(for your benefit)when there is enough space so as to have at least half a road width between us,which iv mentioned before,but you must have missed that.

I think i said earlier that i will always pass with more space,than what iv had as iv been passed.Also read above,if you want to ask again about space.

If i cant pass on the other side of the road,i will wait until i can,or there is enough spce to do it without going to the other side,again see above for space.

Again,no i dont overtake with only three and a bit feet between us.

Iv never argued that closer overtaking is safe,you just assume it.

And no,im not going to reassess how i pass cyclists.

I hope you do some more assuming and dissecting,iv got nothing else to do tonight,but please do read my posts before answering,it seem you are not.


----------



## vernon (30 Dec 2007)

Getting back to the original post.

Yes the bus driver with the identity and memory problems - was it a bus driver or was it her as the bus driver?, was the window open or wasn't it? was in the wrong.


----------



## Jaded (30 Dec 2007)

col said:


> About *three and a half feet* is a decent gap,im in agreement with you.I think anything near seven feet is not practical,in most situations,due to raod widths and other things.



You are a midget and I claim my £5

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


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

col said:


> No,i said it hasnt scared me to be overtaken that close.
> 
> I also said that three and a half feet is a fair gap.with a question mark.



You _constantly_ contradict yourself.

YOU said:


> About three and a half feet is a decent gap



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

Make up your mind. Is three and a half feet a safe gap to be overtaken, _yes or no_?



> Iv never said, i was always overtaken at closer to three feet.



Hang on, you said:


> Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.



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



> How do you know what i pass, as a safe pass space?your assuming again,when did i say that it was safe to pass at less than three and a half feet?



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



> Iv never said it s ok to pass at three and a half feet.Iv never said im happy about it,i said it hasnt scared me.



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


> About three and a half feet is a decent gap



Are you retracting that statement now?



> Yes i have sometimes passed a cyclist,with out going on the other side of the road,but only when its safe to do so,(for your benefit)when there is enough space so as to have at least half a road width between us,which iv mentioned before,but you must have missed that.
> 
> I think i said earlier that i will always pass with more space,than what iv had as iv been passed.Also read above,if you want to ask again about space.
> 
> If i cant pass on the other side of the road,i will wait until i can,or there is enough spce to do it without going to the other side,again see above for space.



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



> Again,no i dont overtake with only three and a bit feet between us.
> 
> Iv never argued that closer overtaking is safe,you just assume it.



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


> About three and a half feet is a decent gap





> And no,im not going to reassess how i pass cyclists.
> 
> I hope you do some more assuming and dissecting,iv got nothing else to do tonight,but please do read my posts before answering,it seem you are not.



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


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2007)

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


----------



## col (30 Dec 2007)

Jaded said:


> You are a midget and I claim my £5
> 
> The reason for the requirement for drivers to give as least as much room as they would a car when overtaking a bicycle is to allow the bike to wobble, or worse still, fall off. I'm over 6' and I'd like 6' of space to fall off into.



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


----------



## col (30 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You _constantly_ contradict yourself.
> 
> YOU said:
> 
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


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



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


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

col said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


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



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


----------



## col (30 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Yet you've actually said that you pass closer than you should; you've poo-pood the idea that you would pass Jaded at a distance appropriate to how big he is, you have refused to elaborate on your actual overtaking distance, you've contradicted yourself _and the advice on overtaking in the highway code_.
> 
> Simple truth is you've said you overtake at a safe distance, but you've also contradicted yourself with stupid assertions about how far you pass someone.
> 
> Lets put numbers on it; I'm just shy of 6' tall, if I'm on a fairly upright bike, how much space do you pass me with, how much clearance from my right elbow, very minimum?




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


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

col said:


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



And _again_ you avoid answering. Minimum overtaking _distance_. Answer, please.


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


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



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


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2007)

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

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


----------



## col (30 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> And _again_ you avoid answering. Minimum overtaking _distance_. Answer, please.




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


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Gosh you take it too seriously, and I'm sorry! I was just poking a bit of gentle fun at you, nothing more, and I thought you'd see the funny side.
> 
> And no, you were wrong, and told to be so by several people. Let it go, it's a minor issue.



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

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


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

col said:


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



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


----------



## col (30 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


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




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


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2007)

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


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

col said:


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



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


----------



## col (30 Dec 2007)

BentMikey said:


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




I probably wouldnt Mike,But the lengths cab has gone to,to catch me out or say something that isnt true,then go on to say my judgment is poor,or stupid,is unbelievable.so im not getting pulled into any thing he might be trying to dissect again.


----------



## col (30 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


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



Oh i see what your getting at,yes seven feet is unrelistic,for us to expect all the time,but it isnt what i subscribe to,when i am the vehicle.it was what i have come to expect from other vehicles when i am cycling,but you assumed because of that,that is what i think is safe,and something i do myself,as a car driver.
And i havnt said im comfortable with it,i just havnt felt in danger yet.


----------



## Cab (30 Dec 2007)

col said:


> I probably wouldnt Mike,But the lengths cab has gone to,to catch me out or say something that isnt true,then go on to say my judgment is poor,or stupid,is unbelievable.so im not getting pulled into any thing he might be trying to dissect again.



You've contradicted yourself over, and over. You've described pretty silly judgement about safe overtaking distances. And you've then bottled out of defining how closely you overtake, after first saying that the distance required to safely overtake a tall cyclist is 'unrealistic'.

I don't have to do anything clever here; I've even given you an easy out. I've given you the chance to say that no, you don't overtake within the lane (which would of course be contradicting yourself), to say that you pass a cyclist at a distance such that if he wobbles and falls you'll miss him (which would be contradicting yourself), to say that your definition of a safe overtaking distance is something other than three and a half feet. But, no. Instead you've bottled, you will neither say how much space you'd leave nore will you defend the overtaking distance you do leave.

And instead, rather than just stick up for yourself in a reasoned discussion, you have again and again resorted to abuse. 

Honestly, why are you even here?


----------



## BentMikey (30 Dec 2007)

col said:


> I probably wouldnt Mike,But the lengths cab has gone to,to catch me out or say something that isnt true,then go on to say my judgment is poor,or stupid,is unbelievable.so im not getting pulled into any thing he might be trying to dissect again.



Sorry Col, I was talking to Cab there, not you.


----------



## col (30 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> You've contradicted yourself over, and over. You've described pretty silly judgement about safe overtaking distances. And you've then bottled out of defining how closely you overtake, after first saying that the distance required to safely overtake a tall cyclist is 'unrealistic'.
> 
> I don't have to do anything clever here; I've even given you an easy out. I've given you the chance to say that no, you don't overtake within the lane (which would of course be contradicting yourself), to say that you pass a cyclist at a distance such that if he wobbles and falls you'll miss him (which would be contradicting yourself), to say that your definition of a safe overtaking distance is something other than three and a half feet. But, no. Instead you've bottled, you will neither say how much space you'd leave nore will you defend the overtaking distance you do leave.
> 
> ...



Ok cab,it obvious that your not going to accept i dont do the close overtaking bit,and it is probably safe to say,im not good on the debate with words.
The reality is,most vehicles dont give enough room,thats what iv come to terms with,as im cycling.
I give as much room as i can,if i cant give enough room,i wont pass until i can.
That measurement of three and a half feet, was introduced by you in a link,and i said that its ok,there is my mistake,i dont think it is a safe distance,but in general,thats what seems to be the norm at the moment ,which is what iv got used to,even though its not as safe as it could be.
My abuse meaning the peanut bit?that was my reaction to your incessant attacking,and assuming,and insulting me with im poor or dangerous,in a hinting way.
As for contradicting myself,your the one saying i have,but i cant see how i have?



Iv just noticed the "why are you even here" bit,well thanks very much cab,because i havnt been able to counter your rediculous insinuations,and asumptions,you resort to this sort of thing,well there seems to be more people here,who will debate something without making it a personal attack on someones ability,also people here have a laugh and joke on about things,and generally chew the breeze,and even help with queries about bikes too,thats why i m here.


----------



## nethalus (30 Dec 2007)

It's like I said before Col, he don't like us bus drivers. So no matter what we say he'll reply with long winded assumptions. Like he assumed I've never ridden a bike, which I have. Used to commute to work and back regularily on a bike before I learnt to drive. Admittedly it was only a mile there and a mile back home again.


----------



## magnatom (31 Dec 2007)

Blimey!  Pop away for a few days and this thing grows legs of it's own! I wouldn't know where to start.

Oh well I'm off to have a beer.... Happy hogmanay!!


----------



## Cab (31 Dec 2007)

col said:


> Ok cab,it obvious that your not going to accept i dont do the close overtaking bit,and it is probably safe to say,im not good on the debate with words.
> The reality is,most vehicles dont give enough room,thats what iv come to terms with,as im cycling.



Cycle in primary position on roads where it is appropriate to doso. Then, by far the majority of all vehicles will give you safe overtaking room. You're being passed too closely because you're _not_ cycling on the right road space. 



> I give as much room as i can,if i cant give enough room,i wont pass until i can.



How much space is too little, i.e. how much room is not enough? You're dancing arouond the question and just _not aswering_. Theres only really one rational conclusion to draw from that.



> That measurement of three and a half feet, was introduced by you in a link,and i said that its ok,there is my mistake,i dont think it is a safe distance,but in general,thats what seems to be the norm at the moment ,which is what iv got used to,even though its not as safe as it could be.



Contradicting yourselg again.



> My abuse meaning the peanut bit?that was my reaction to your incessant attacking,and assuming,and insulting me with im poor or dangerous,in a hinting way.
> As for contradicting myself,your the one saying i have,but i cant see how i have?



Unbelievable. Even after being told specifically where you've contradicted yourself you can't see it.

Bottom line; you've advocated road positioning by cyclists that is less than safe, and you've defined the space required for safe overtaking of cyclists as unrealistic. When challenged on those points you've crawled under your shell and just not engaged on those points. 

Get off the roads. Don't cycle, your positioning is terrible. And don't drive, if you're unable to even estimate how far you give when overtaking bikes, you just shoudn't be out there.


----------



## simon l& and a half (31 Dec 2007)

well, that does for Col! Is there anybody else you'd like to see off the roads, Cab? I confess to not having pedal reflectors. Just say the word, and I'll hang up my Shimano......


----------



## nethalus (31 Dec 2007)

Cab said:


> Cycle in primary position on roads where it is appropriate to doso. Then, by far the majority of all vehicles will give you safe overtaking room. You're being passed too closely because you're _not_ cycling on the right road space.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Geez, I think Col has said half a dozen times that he passes wide when over taking cyclists, and if he can't overtake safely then he don't. Surely that's good enough and acceptable by most normal people?
Secondly if Col does not feel intimidated when vehicles overtake him when riding his bike then why should that mean he's doing anything wrong? Have you ever seen him ride? If not how do you know his positioning is terrible? 
And lastly, sorry but until you get voted leader of the world, you do not have any rights to tell people they cannot ride or drive on the public road simply because of your very biased opionions!


----------



## Crackle (31 Dec 2007)

STOP!

Off to bed now all of you. Brush teeth first and then 10 minutes reading a book before lights out................


----------



## nethalus (31 Dec 2007)

That don't sound a bad idea actually. I'm full of flu so an hour or more in bed sounds rather inviting.


----------



## domtyler (31 Dec 2007)

simon l& and a half said:


> well, that does for Col! Is there anybody else you'd like to see off the roads, Cab? I confess to not having pedal reflectors. Just say the word, and I'll hang up my Shimano......



Get off the roads. Don't cycle, your reflection levels are terrible. And don't drive, if you're unable to even estimate how reflective you need to be on a bike you just shouldn't be out there.


----------



## gambatte (31 Dec 2007)

Don’t worry guys, Cab maybe not the best cyclist either. How many times have we heard him go on about slapping cyclists in the face whilst indicating left? (like below)



Cab said:


> Further on, I'm out in primary, I look over my shoulder, indicate to turn left, brake gently, indicate again, and slap another cyclist in the face as I do so; he's completely missed me indicating and rather than overtaking around the outside he's trying to get through kerb-side. Neither of us came off but he didn't half swear at me.
> 
> Now, I know, you have to give and take and use primary and secondary road positions as appropriate, but the problem I often have in Cambridge at this time of year is just how many cyclists here are complete muppets who don't know to respect other peoples spacing and road positioning, who don't get why every gap on the road is a good place to dive in to.
> 
> Whats the best way for dealing with such traffic situations? I'm leaving enough space on the road to be safe when dealing with motorised vehicles, and those gaps get filled with other bikes. Whats the solution?



_ Cyclecraft page 103.

Before you turn, check another cyclist or motorcyclist is not coming up behind you and with whom your turn might conflict if they try to come between you and the kerb. Glance behind over your left shoulder to be sure_ 

Once OK, twice (hmmm), three times – might be time to adjust the riding style?


----------



## Cab (1 Jan 2008)

gambatte said:


> Once OK, twice (hmmm), three times – might be time to adjust the riding style?



Thats the only time its happened while I've been moving (the other times have been when in a stop box at the front of traffic, indicating left, and RLJing cyclists turning_right_ have undertaken, gone straight through the lights, straight through my arm). And if I wasn't willing to accept criticism for that, I wouldn't have posted it.

And while the other guy was being a dick in the situation cited there, the criticism of me there is entirely fair. How the heck is that in any way relevant here?


----------



## Cab (1 Jan 2008)

nethalus said:


> Geez, I think Col has said half a dozen times that he passes wide when over taking cyclists, and if he can't overtake safely then he don't. Surely that's good enough and acceptable by most normal people?



Yet he seems oddly recalcitrant when asked how far he passes, and he's defined reasonable distances for passing as unrealistic.



> Secondly if Col does not feel intimidated when vehicles overtake him when riding his bike then why should that mean he's doing anything wrong? Have you ever seen him ride? If not how do you know his positioning is terrible?



Because he's told us where he rides, he's told us that he's constantly overtaken closer than three and a half feet. He's in a poor secondary position, needlessly endangering himself. Thats how we know.



> And lastly, sorry but until you get voted leader of the world, you do not have any rights to tell people they cannot ride or drive on the public road simply because of your very biased opionions!



Advising others to stop doing something wrong is perfectly reasonable. His cycling position is wrong. His description of a safe overtaking distance for a tall cyclist as 'unrealistic' is unacceptable. If thats his attitude, it would be better all round for him not to be out on the roads.


----------



## tdr1nka (1 Jan 2008)

Daisy, Daiseeeeeeeeee........give me your answer doooooooooooo........

T x

Happy New Year All!


----------



## nethalus (1 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Daisy, Daiseeeeeeeeee........give me your answer doooooooooooo........
> 
> T x
> 
> Happy New Year All!



Happy New Year from me too.


----------



## John Ponting (1 Jan 2008)

nethalus said:


> Happy New Year from me too.




That's nice ... a new years greeting from the thread originator. 


Happy New Year to you too from me, and to everybody else on the forum.


----------



## nethalus (1 Jan 2008)

yenrod said:


> EASY, get the reg - ring company up = job solved !




How's that then?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Jan 2008)

_*Sixty five pages?!*_


----------



## gambatte (3 Jan 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> _*Sixty five pages?!*_



Be fair, thats only 30% contributions other than Cab!


----------

