# Angry threats



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

Cycling along, I hear what I think is a toot behind (isn't picked up by the mic which faces forward). I look around and the 'chap' in the following car asks me to pull over. At a glance, it didn't seem aggressive, so I assumed he just wanted to tell me something. As I was turning right I continued my turn and stopped. Then I asked what the problem was in a friendly manner. Turns out he was an angry man. I have no idea why. Notice how he threatens to drive the car at me and verbally threatens me. Why?

(Video intentionally blurred to protect the guilty....)



View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dDXPIXnLs6E


----------



## Maz (29 Apr 2008)

Gawd. I can never see utube at work. 
Did you ever find out why he was angry, and was it something you did?


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

Maz said:


> Gawd. I can never see utube at work.
> Did you ever find out why he was angry, and was it something you did?



I think he was just annoyed that I was holding him up, despite the dirty great bus just ahead of me, that would have been much better at holding him up.

Maybe he misheard what I said, but you can literally see the red mist descending over his eyes. I would be tempted to go to the police with it because of the verbal threat (and the threat he made by aiming his car at me), but I'm having problems with another complaint that I made to the police (very close overtake). The police have failed to get back to me despite me phoning up twice to find out what is happening. I'm not to happy with that, especially considering the statement they made to STV. I'll be giving them a little more time......


----------



## domtyler (29 Apr 2008)

What happened just before the incident though? Did anything occur off camera?


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

domtyler said:


> What happened just before the incident though? Did anything occur off camera?



Nope. Nothing at all. Looking at earlier footage, I think I may have filtered past him, but he was a good few cars back from where I slotted in without any problems and it was a good couple of minutes before the incident. I'd post it but there really is nothing to see.

Interestingly when they pulled up beside me, I think they were going to stop, but I think the driver caught a glimpse of the camera and though better of it. The camera did its job!


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

Actually looking at the footage. I stopped at the red light. He must have been behind me. Maybe he didn't like the fact that I didn't RLJ!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (29 Apr 2008)

He also seems to drive onto the pavement at some speed... surely this is not legal practise!!


----------



## Bollo (29 Apr 2008)

I think its time to go back to the press with a "...well I followed the police's advice in the statement that they gave you, STV, but they don't seem to be interested. Go figure?" The press might consider a follow-up.

I'd be very suprised that plod would do anything about a close overtake, but they should follow up your phonecalls. As for this one, report it. He threatened to assault you.

A tactic I used once when a bus overtook me just I was about to turn right (and indicating, the tw@t nearly took my arm off) was to ring up the bus company and tell my tale _without mentioning I was on a bike_. The guy on the other end just assumed I was in a car and was very unimpressed with his driver. Amazing how that little detail changes people's perceptions. In this case, report it as a threatened assault, say you've got evidence on camera but, unless you're asked explicitly, don't say you were riding a bike. You were stationary anyway.

Have you thought that he might be one of your many 'admirers'?


----------



## domtyler (29 Apr 2008)

> That's assault. I'd have a chat with the police.



Who will quietly tell you to fuck off and stop pestering them.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (29 Apr 2008)

... for which you need to ensure you have your camera handy...


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

Bollo said:


> I think its time to go back to the press with a "...well I followed the police's advice in the statement that they gave you, STV, but they don't seem to be interested. Go figure?" The press might consider a follow-up.




Bollo, you have read my mind! I want to give them a little more time, but going back to the press is an option. I have the reporters mobile number and she texted me after the article went out to find out what reaction I had had. She also asked me to keep her informed. 

This chaps driving was certainly dangerous, he drove up onto the pavement at speed, when there were pedestrians around, he reversed in such a way forcing traffic behind him to come to a halt. He also, for a second drove his car at me, making me flinch, but he thought better of that. After he drove away he actually did a big circle to go back the way he was originally heading (I didn't quite catch that on camera). He went out of his way to have a loud word with me. 

I still have my doubts about how seriously the police would take it, although this incident is more serious than my other one. 

In Scots law is threatening someone considered assault?


I am also waiting for some folk on here to tell me that I in some way inflamed the situation or caused it.


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

> Of course you inflamed the situation! You were on a bike!



I'm sure mr_hippo will spot some other infringement....


----------



## domtyler (29 Apr 2008)

Did you scratch his car or anything when you filtered by earlier? It just doesn't make sense otherwise. He was obviously pretty wound up about something and if he was in a rush he wouldn't have gone out of his way like that.

I feel we're only getting half the story here!


----------



## mr_hippo (29 Apr 2008)

Magnatom, may I suggest either an anger management course or a course of Prozac? 
"I look around and the chap in the following car asks me to pull over." The camera did not pick that up - did he gesture or shout? If he shouted then he must have a fast window winder because when he stopped his window was shut! 
"Then I asked what the problem was in a friendly manner." You call that friendly?
"...he drove up onto the pavement at speed," More like a fast walking pace!
As for your mobile phone video - words fail me. You said "This chap was trying to hide the fact that he was using a mobile phone (*holding it on his lap*, using the speaker phone)." Where was the red arrow pointing to? That was his chest, you will find that his lap is lower down.


magnatom said:


> but I'm having problems with another complaint that I made to the police (very close overtake). The police have failed to get back to me despite me phoning up twice to find out what is happening.


I wonder why? Have you ever read 'Aesop's Fables'? 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' springs to mind!
Now get a life!


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

domtyler said:


> Did you scratch his car or anything when you filtered by earlier? It just doesn't make sense otherwise. He was obviously pretty wound up about something and if he was in a rush he wouldn't have gone out of his way like that.
> 
> I feel we're only getting half the story here!



Och yer just on the wind up.  

Seriously not a thing happened. I totally agree it doesn't make any sense at all.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (29 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> "...he drove up onto the pavement at speed," More like a fast walking pace!


Fast walking pace *is* at speed - certainly for a car on the pavement.

Muppet.


----------



## papercorn2000 (29 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Bollo, you have read my mind! I want to give them a little more time, but going back to the press is an option. I have the reporters mobile number and she texted me after the article went out to find out what reaction I had had. She also asked me to keep her informed.
> 
> This chaps driving was certainly dangerous, he drove up onto the pavement at speed, when there were pedestrians around, he reversed in such a way forcing traffic behind him to come to a halt. He also, for a second drove his car at me, making me flinch, but he thought better of that. After he drove away he actually did a big circle to go back the way he was originally heading (I didn't quite catch that on camera). He went out of his way to have a loud word with me.
> 
> ...



"Common Law of Threats
In Scotland there also exists the common law crime of threats. There are two classes of threats: the first includes threats to "burn a man's house....to put him to death, or to do him any grievous bodily harm, or to do any serious injury to his property, his fortune, or his reputation." There is a completed crime in such cases as soon as the threat is made, for example, by posting a threatening letter. The second class comprises all other threats including threats of violence not amounting to grievous harm. Clearly threats of violence could also be charged as breach of the peace if the conduct involved puts someone in a state of fear or alarm."

from :http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/sah-03.asp


----------



## Eat MY Dust (29 Apr 2008)

I'm sorry but he would have been told to f_ck off straight away. Have you seen the clip from Lock Stock where Vinnie Jones is smashing the guys head in with the door of a car? That would be a start.


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Magnatom, may I suggest either an anger management course or a course of Prozac?




Aha, right on cue!

So mr_hippo, show me where I am angry. Please point it out. You seem to have a lot of anger pent up inside. Maybe I should refer you on to one of my psychiatry colleagues. Oh I should point out as a normal volunteer I have undertaken a number psychiatric questionnaires and have been informed that I am a well balanced individual (shocking I know!). So there you go. No need for prozac. Unfortunately my sister does require anti-depressants (it is no secret) so I would prefer it if you would not take such things so lightly. 



> "I look around and the chap in the following car asks me to pull over." The camera did not pick that up - did he gesture or shout? If he shouted then he must have a fast window winder because when he stopped his window was shut!



He gestured. So no need for lightening fast windows. The camera did not pick it up as I have evolved an amazing ability to swivel my eyes from side to side (like action man!). Amazing! I can sometimes see further around than my camera. Well there you go! 



> "Then I asked what the problem was in a friendly manner." You call that friendly?



I do indeed. Not much else to say here really. 





> "...he drove up onto the pavement at speed," More like a fast walking pace!



So what would you say would be the correct speed to conduct such a maneuver, with pedestrians in close proximity? Do you think this chap would pass his driving test doing this? (Please, please answer this!)




> As for your mobile phone video - words fail me.



No they didn't because you proceed to say quite a lot (although it is drivel so you could be right after all!)



> You said "This chap was trying to hide the fact that he was using a mobile phone (*holding it on his lap*, using the speaker phone)." Where was the red arrow pointing to? That was his chest, you will find that his lap is lower down.



No the red arrow was pointing to his phone. My goodness! I may have got my anatomy wrong! Near his chest and not his lap. I'm sorry but the majority of my work involves the brain, so I don't know the rest of my anatomy too well. However, had I been doing a functional scan on this chap at that moment, I am sure that Broca's and Wernick's areas would have been particularly active during his mobile phone conversation which because of the method that he chose to use his phone was very much illegal. The fact that he is not holding it next to his ear (it's near his brain so I know that one!) suggests a knowledge that being seen using said phone in such a way would be illegal.





> Now get a life!



I have one thank you. A wonderful wife, two lovely kids, a nice home, a job that is really interesting and in which I am currently taking part in some exciting developments (you could search for my patent if you wish), I have some great friends, I enjoy judo and socialising etc. So I'll stick with the one I have thanks. How's yours?

Please, mr_hippo. Don't do what you did before and disappear off. Please look at my replies and comment on them. If you do find that you are wrong anywhere (god forbid!), then have a heart (where is that again?) and let me know. I would be so, so happy to know that you admit that you do (at least sometimes) talk a complete load of Tosh.

I thank you!


----------



## mr_hippo (29 Apr 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Fast walking pace *is* at speed - certainly for a car *on the pavement*.
> Muppet.


Why are you signing your post 'Muppet'? If you think that was on the pavement, you need your eyes examined! At worst, he clipped the kerb. "Fast walking pace *is* at speed" Are you some sort of idiot? A fast walking pace is about 13 minute/mile so you consider that driving at over 4.6 mph is speeding?


----------



## spindrift (29 Apr 2008)

Mr Hippo, would a driving test in which the driver mounted the pavement whilst angrily gesticulating result in a pass, do ya think?


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Why are you signing your post 'Muppet'? If you think that was on the pavement, you need your eyes examined! At worst, he clipped the kerb. "Fast walking pace *is* at speed" Are you some sort of idiot? A fast walking pace is about 13 minute/mile so you consider that driving at over 4.6 mph is speeding?



Mr_hippo,

I also know a little about the eyes, as they are near the brain, and I would suggest that you might want to visit an optician some time soon!


----------



## fossyant (29 Apr 2008)

Whooaa - who the hell's got out of bed the wrong side...?

What did the chap say - no audio here. 

I'd have told him to "fcuk right off and do one".....


----------



## mr_cellophane (29 Apr 2008)

Odd reflective jacket he has on. Looks very much like a fireman's.


----------



## gambatte (29 Apr 2008)

Anyone think Mr Hippo might have been sent to Bangkok, rather than going of his own volition?


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

gambatte said:


> Anyone think Mr Hippo might have been sent to Bangkok, rather than going of his own volition?



Give the guy a break. I actually quite like him. There is no-one I enjoy replying to more .


----------



## mr_hippo (29 Apr 2008)

Here I go again, wasting my time with Magnatom Fan Club! 


magnatom said:


> So mr_hippo, *show me where I am angry. Please point it out. The tone of your voice gives it away*. *You seem to have a lot of anger pent up inside.No anger inside me, I live an extremely contented life.* Maybe I should refer you on to one of my psychiatry colleagues. Oh I should point out as a normal volunteer I have undertaken a number psychiatric questionnaires and have been informed that I am a well balanced individual (shocking I know!). So there you go. No need for prozac. Unfortunately my sister does require anti-depressants (it is no secret) so I would prefer it if you would not take such things so lightly.


I am not taking things lightly but please, think about anger management and/or Prozac.


magnatom said:


> So what would you say would be the correct speed to conduct such a maneuver, with pedestrians in close proximity? Do you think this chap would pass his driving test doing this? (Please, please answer this!)


Haven't you ever clipped the kerb when you have been driving? Would he have passed his test? No and stop asking silly questions!

'Words fail me' is an idiom and does not mean that a person has nothing to say.


magnatom said:


> Please, mr_hippo. Don't do what you did before and disappear off. Please look at my replies and comment on them. If you do find that you are wrong anywhere (god forbid!), then have a heart (where is that again?) and let me know. I would be so, so happy to know that you admit that you do (at least sometimes) talk a complete load of Tosh.


What and waste more of my time?
Now please take a cycling course and remember that you are not the only one on the road. You do a lot of your cycling in fairly light urban traffic so you can expect a few near misses. Learn to live with it!


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Here I go again, wasting my time with Magnatom Fan Club!



Your joking right!  I think you'll find that no one has probably agreed with me all of the time. Fans tend to idolise someone. Please name anyone on here who idolises me. 



> The tone of your voice gives it away. You seem to have a lot of anger pent up inside.No anger inside me, I live an extremely contented life.



Blimey, I bet your one of those mystic meg type people. Do you have a wee tent where people come in and as soon as they speak you can tell what it is they want for Christmas?

I can assure you, there was no anger. In fact, as I have suggested, I though the bloke was going to do me a favour, i.e. say something like 'you forgot to do up your fly, mate!'. Why would I be angry with him?




> I am not taking things lightly but please, think about anger management and/or Prozac.



What are your qualifications? My colleagues who have tested me for such traits and found none, have quite a few relating to their abilities in this particular area....



> Haven't you ever clipped the kerb when you have been driving? Would he have passed his test? No and stop asking silly questions!



I have never ever driven that far up on a pavement. Trust me both wheels where at least 1.5 metres on the pavement.

It's not a silly question. It proves that this gentleman was driving in a dangerous manner. You obviously agree, so I don't understand what your problem is (actually I have an idea what your problem is, but it's best you go see a doctor before we discuss it )



> 'Words fail me' is an idiom and does not mean that a person has nothing to say.



Did you look that up on the internet? 




> What and waste more of my time?



It's funny that people often tend to say that when they are loosing an argument. Go on, set a poll. ask how many people agree with what you are saying. You are just trolling. Very enjoyable trolling, but you are just trolling none the less. You only ever come into commuting to try and berate me. Do you not like me? Have I offended you? Are you my personal web stalker? In fact that makes sense, you wrote the Bawbag Cyclist web site didn't you!




> Now please take a cycling course and remember that you are not the only one on the road. You do a lot of your cycling in fairly light urban traffic so you can expect a few near misses.



Oh I bow down at your feet. You must commute in much heavier traffic and so are soooo much more worthy!




> Learn to live with it!



I have and I do. I think I cope with lots of abuse, bad driving etc quite well. Sure I'm not perfect but I haven't had a crash yet (ok two where my wheels went from underneath me, but not involving any other traffic!) or completely lost my rag. I just think I shouldn't have to live with it. I think I can make a difference. I think I have a little. If enough people tried to make a little difference it would add up to a bid difference. (I'm a physicist so I can add! ).


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

My quotes in the last post seem to have failed me sorry! Nothing I do seems to fix it. Any ideas?


----------



## fossyant (29 Apr 2008)

'Erm anyway ladies..... 

Mag - What did the guy say to you ?


----------



## BentMikey (29 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Why are you signing your post ...




*plonk*


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

fossyant said:


> 'Erm anyway ladies.....
> 
> Mag - What did the guy say to you ?



I didn't catch it all, but the bit I did hear was:

'...I'll punch you off that bike'


----------



## domtyler (29 Apr 2008)

It has to be said Magnatom, you certainly do seem to go looking for it!


----------



## John the Monkey (29 Apr 2008)

> My quotes in the last post seem to have failed me sorry! Nothing I do seems to fix it. Any ideas?



You're slashing the wrong way Magnatom...


----------



## 4F (29 Apr 2008)

fossyant said:


> 'Erm anyway ladies.....
> 
> Mag - What did the guy say to you ?



I didn't quite catch it word for word but it sounded like:-
"Are you that Loon who was on the telly recently ? "


----------



## Yellow Fang (29 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Bollo, you have read my mind! I want to give them a little more time, but going back to the press is an option. I have the reporters mobile number and she texted me after the article went out to find out what reaction I had had. She also asked me to keep her informed.
> 
> This chaps driving was certainly dangerous, he drove up onto the pavement at speed, when there were pedestrians around, he reversed in such a way forcing traffic behind him to come to a halt. He also, for a second drove his car at me, making me flinch, but he thought better of that. After he drove away he actually did a big circle to go back the way he was originally heading (I didn't quite catch that on camera). He went out of his way to have a loud word with me.
> 
> ...



If you think he is a dangerous danger then you have a civic duty to try and get him off the road before he badly hurts someone. People who can't control their road-rage should not drive cars (like me ).


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> You're slashing the wrong way Magnatom...



Ah I always seem to have a problem with slashes.......


----------



## domtyler (29 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> I didn't catch it all, but the bit I did hear was:
> 
> '...I'll punch you off that bike'



I listened a few times, I think it was:

Said to his mate in the car-
"Och it's that wee loon from off You Tube, I'll teach him proper reet"

Said through the window-
"Och, your the feckin Taped Crusader y'wee feckless bastard, I'll punch you off that wee bike o' yours y'wee kent like. I'll feckin chib y' too y' wee basket."


----------



## Milo (29 Apr 2008)

Id go to the police Ive recently thought of getting a helmet camera due to a couple of nasty shouts off the local boy racers problem is I cant stand wearing helmets.


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

domtyler said:


> I listened a few times, I think it was:
> 
> Said to his mate in the car-
> "Och it's that wee loon from off You Tube, I'll teach him proper reet"
> ...


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

miloat said:


> Id go to the police Ive recently thought of getting a helmet camera due to a couple of nasty shouts off the local boy racers problem is I cant stand wearing helmets.



milaoat,

you don't need a helmet. My camera is actually attached to a strap which is around my head. This all sits just under my helmet. You might look a bit daft with it on your head (would look like a sweat band) but there is no need for a helmet.

If you do buy one, be sure to tell them magnatom sent you!


----------



## mickle (29 Apr 2008)

Magnatom fan club eh? How much is it to join?


----------



## John the Monkey (29 Apr 2008)

mickle said:


> Magnatom fan club eh? How much is it to join?



Is there a badge? Newsletter?


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

mickle said:


> Magnatom fan club eh? How much is it to join?



£50 a pop. I'll send you details of my secret offshore bank account if you like?

No newsletter, but I will let you see my secret videos. Anyone remember the one about the pavement cyclist....


----------



## Bollo (29 Apr 2008)

miloat said:


> Id go to the police Ive recently thought of getting a helmet camera due to a couple of nasty shouts off the local boy racers problem is I cant stand wearing helmets.



Mine's on the handlebars. You lose the ability to point the camera where you're looking, but its better than nowt,

or



miloat said:


> I cant stand wearing helmets.



Try wearing only one helmet at a time. This is much more comfortable 

I'll be here all night, I thank you!


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

Bollo said:


> I'll be here all night, I thank you!



All this fame has gone to your head.


----------



## Bollo (29 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> All this fame has gone to your head.



Sorry, I don't talk to regional celebs. 'National' I am, mate!


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

Bollo said:


> Sorry, I don't talk to regional celebs. 'National' I am, mate!


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (29 Apr 2008)

domtyler said:


> Who will quietly tell you to fuck off and stop pestering them.



Got to agree – just watch any episode of Police Camera Chav Action and you’ll see far worse driving and threats carried out in front of the police, on camera, with no fear of any action being taken – sorry Manatom, I support your cause, but the police will do absolutely nothing with this.


----------



## yello (29 Apr 2008)

I doubt the police would do anything either because, and lord knows why I'm going to be fair to the guy, it's difficult to know WHY he acted as he did. I'm bewildered as to what provoked that reaction, there's nothing on the video to suggest anything, and whilst I believe magnatom completely that nothing did occur, I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. At best, plod might have a word with him but I wouldn't be holding my breath.

I'd file this one under 'what the f*ck was that about?' and forget about it.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (29 Apr 2008)

How's this for a test. Go into the plod station with the footage on DVD. Have a mate follow you in after a few minutes with your camera hidden (in a bag?) and make sure he looks like he doesn't know you. Make your complaint and then leave. Your friend can then go up behind you and ask something unimportant. I bet when you play the footage back you'll get the real response from the police.


----------



## MERV (29 Apr 2008)

Maz said:


> Gawd. I can never see utube at work.
> Did you ever find out why he was angry, and was it something you did?



Do some work?

The taped crusader.I like that.


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

yello said:


> I doubt the police would do anything either because, and lord knows why I'm going to be fair to the guy, it's difficult to know WHY he acted as he did. I'm bewildered as to what provoked that reaction, there's nothing on the video to suggest anything, and whilst I believe magnatom completely that nothing did occur, I have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. At best, plod might have a word with him but I wouldn't be holding my breath.
> 
> I'd file this one under 'what the f*ck was that about?' and forget about it.



Hand on heart nothing happened. I filtered up to a junction past him a minute or so before, that was all. If I get a chance I will put it on youtube. I left work about 3 or 4 minutes before so the footage wouldn't be too long.


----------



## magnatom (29 Apr 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> How's this for a test. Go into the plod station with the footage on DVD. Have a mate follow you in after a few minutes with your camera hidden (in a bag?) and make sure he looks like he doesn't know you. Make your complaint and then leave. Your friend can then go up behind you and ask something unimportant. I bet when you play the footage back you'll get the real response from the police.



Mmm. Covert filming in a police station. Interesting legally!


----------



## MERV (29 Apr 2008)

You could dress as Jeremy Beadle and catch motorists unawares.Hang on you already do that.


----------



## cannondale boy (29 Apr 2008)

I think the driver just got a copy of GTA 4 today, and maybe thought what it would be like in real life. Driving on pavements, shouting abuse, very, very shocking behavior!


----------



## cntl (29 Apr 2008)

Magnatom, it may be that going to the Police will be a waste of time.
I think that in this country the best way of dealing with an assault like this is to file a civil suit. The added benefit is that your video will be accepted as evidence and they will eventually bill the guy with the legal costs (and who knows, he may even lose his licence).

Cheers


----------



## Landslide (29 Apr 2008)

That's interesting cntl, have you any more info on how such a case might work/be carried out?


----------



## cntl (29 Apr 2008)

If Magnatom wants, I can submit the link to a solicitor and ask for an opinion (or maybe he prefers to do it himself?) That's what I would probably do if it happended to me.


----------



## spindrift (29 Apr 2008)

Witnesses outside that pub?


----------



## goo_mason (29 Apr 2008)

Finally got to watch it. No idea what his problem was, but I have a nasty feeling he may have been one of your 'admirers' from YouTube. Why did he follow you and then turn back the way he came ? Very, very weird.

And I fail to hear what Mr Hippo heard in your 'tone of voice'. He's obviously not familiar with the Glaswegian accent. The first "why" was just a general, pally one. The rest just had you sounding exasperated and progressively more bamboozled, wondering what the heck he was on about. There was no aggression, just puzzlement.

Maybe only those familiar with the accent can get these nuances ?


----------



## Milo (29 Apr 2008)

YAs patters kek


----------



## gambatte (29 Apr 2008)

Report it, tell em it was so out of order, the way he comes after you, mounts the kerb, reverses into oncoming traffic, you're worried not only about this incident, but if this is indicative of his attitude on the road generally.


----------



## HJ (29 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Here I go again, wasting my time with Magnatom Fan Club!



Yes, why are you wasting all of our time??



mr_hippo said:


> You do a lot of your cycling in fairly light urban traffic so you can expect a few near misses. Learn to live with it!



Why should any of us have to put with such things??


----------



## Maz (29 Apr 2008)

Seen the vid now, Mag. I don't get it at all. 

Also, when was the beeping and when did he ask you to pull over? Can't hear any of that in the vid. I reckon he was just peed cos he couldn't get past you.


----------



## HLaB (29 Apr 2008)

Just saw the vid, he followed you up the street just to shout abuse at you then do a u'turn, why  Nothing unusual seemed to happen in the minutes before?


----------



## gambatte (29 Apr 2008)

It wasn't Mr Hippo, was it?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Apr 2008)

I think it's just that there's some oddballs out there. It's not necessarily anything to do with the bike.


----------



## fossyant (29 Apr 2008)

Just barsteward git's in charge of a car....that's it !


----------



## gambatte (29 Apr 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I think it's just that there's some oddballs out there. It's not necessarily anything to do with the bike.



Probably, I wouldn't like an oddball who exhibits this kind of behaviour to retain his licence tho?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Apr 2008)

gambatte said:


> Probably, I wouldn't like an oddball who exhibits this kind of behaviour to retain his licence tho?



No, absolutely. My sympathies are all with Magnatom here.


----------



## mr_hippo (30 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> I have never ever driven that far up on a pavement. Trust me both wheels where at least 1.5 metres on the pavement.
> *Really? Stop the clip at about 01:42. now follow the line of the pavement down from the 'parked' car just beyond the lights - the rear wheels are not on the pavement!*
> It's not a silly question. It proves that this gentleman was driving in a dangerous manner. You obviously agree...*So now clipping the kerb is "driving in a dangerous manner? I don't agree that clipping the kerb is dangerous driving.*
> Did you look that up on the internet?
> ...


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (30 Apr 2008)

Hippo, you're a troll.

Also a bit of a prat, but mainly a troll.

Find your rock, climb back under it.


----------



## spindrift (30 Apr 2008)

You're defending aggressive, violent behaviour on the roads hippo.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2008)

This message is hidden because *mr_hippo* is on your ignore list.


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

Guys,

Just to clarify, at the start of the clip the car was not following me, he just happened to be behind me. After he has driven his car on the pavement (mr hippo, a car has 4 wheels, so when I said both wheels were on the pavement that meant the front two! ) and at me, he then went down a side street to loop back around to carry on in his original direction. I think a few folk may have got the wrong end of the stick and thought he was following me.

I think he only noticed the camera at the end, just before he drove off.

Mr_hippo, you really are quite funny! You would class my questions in the videos as screams 

Tell you what Mr hippo, I'll start taking the prozac if you stop taking the hallucinogenic mushrooms!


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> This message is hidden because *mr_hippo* is on your ignore list.



It's certainly an option Mike, but I actually find Mr_hippos posts mildly entertaining. Not quite up to bonj standard (his early days standard) but none the less entertaining!


----------



## yello (30 Apr 2008)

I do think there was something in your voice that suggested you were anticipating a problem magnatom. I thought it at the time and I watched the video again just to check. That's not a criticism, it's actually more of a statement of the bleedin' obvious! I think it completely natural; we would all wonder what the problem was if we were tooted! Maybe your anticipation of a problem was conveyed in your voice, your posture too maybe. I dunno. Maybe that's what mr_hippo is referring to... maybe...


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2008)

Unfortunately that does seem to be the way some people interpret Magnatom's voice and mood. Sorry mate, but I can see why they think that, although I'm sure you're calm and happy on the inside most of the time.


----------



## spindrift (30 Apr 2008)

oNL;Y A sCOTSMAN GOOD MAKE "gOOD MORNING" SOUND LIKE A DECLARATION OF WAR.


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

Guys, I've shown the clip to a few folk up here and everyone I have shown it to agrees that there is no hint of anger in my voice. My voice is only raised to be heard above the traffic. Might be the accent.

Of course, even if I shouted angrily, it would not justify his response.


----------



## yello (30 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Of course, even if I shouted angrily, it would not justify his response.



No, agreed, absolutely. 

Perception is a very personal thing. Maybe it's the accent, maybe I'm reading 'conflict' into the situation and hearing what I expect to hear. 

As an aside, various studies have been carried out into the perception of different accents. Businesses often refer to such studies when deciding where to base their call centres. I seem to recall London accents were often viewed with distrust, etc... and Brummies are just depressed! (joke)


----------



## davidtq (30 Apr 2008)

Im from right down south (devon), and I didnt hear threat or anger in that (magnatoms) voice...

To me it sounded confused and questioning.

Maybe thats just because my own angry voice is err somewhat more definite...


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Apr 2008)

davidtq said:


> Im from right down south (devon), and I didnt hear threat or anger in that (magnatoms) voice...
> 
> To me it sounded confused and questioning.
> 
> Maybe thats just because my own angry voice is err somewhat more definite...



Oooo Arrrr, what you'm tootin' about me 'andsome....


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

I never thought my voice or accent would be open to such close scrutiny!


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

I've added a video to my account that shows what happens on my commute after leaving work, right up until and just after the incident. However, as it shows exactly where I park my bike I didn't want to post it publicly. So if anyone is interested in seeing it and confirming that nothing untoward happened before the incident you'll need to make me a friend on youtube. 

You can of course dump me as soon as you have looked at the video!


----------



## mr_hippo (30 Apr 2008)

spindrift said:


> You're defending aggressive, violent behaviour on the roads hippo.


Where am I defending it? Nowhere!


magnatom said:


> Just to clarify, at the start of the clip the car was not following me, he just happened to be behind me. After he has driven his car on the pavement (mr hippo, a car has 4 wheels, so when I said both wheels were on the pavement that meant the front two! ) *only one wheel was on the pavement. *and at me, he then went down a side street to loop back around to carry on in his original direction. I think a few folk may have got the wrong end of the stick and thought he was following me. *What a very strange reaction, waiting for the car to come back!*


----------



## Maz (30 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> I never thought my voice or accent would be open to such close scrutiny!


I can't hear any anger in your voice or accent. You come across as pretty calm in that clip, IMHO.


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

No mr_hippo, two wheels were on the pavement. Your wrong. Watch as the car reverses back off of the pavement, you can see a slight bounce as the cars front right wheel comes off the pavement, followed by the left wheel. I look forward to you admitting you were wrong 

I don't follow what you mean by this '_What a very strange reaction, waiting for the car to come back!_' Please expand on this and I will answer your point.


----------



## LLB (30 Apr 2008)

Not a personal dig so don't take it that way magnatom, but you filtered up alongside the silver estate car (toyota ?) on the pedestrian crossing. It is an illegal manouver to do so, so not best practice if you are criticising someone elses on film.


----------



## spindrift (30 Apr 2008)

_It is an illegal manouver to do so, so not best practice if you are criticising someone elses on film._

What law's that then?

Muppet, confine yourself to self-gratifying over your horse box, you know shoot about cycling.


----------



## Maz (30 Apr 2008)

This aint Soapbox, fellas.


----------



## LLB (30 Apr 2008)

spindrift said:


> _It is an illegal manouver to do so, so not best practice if you are criticising someone elses on film._
> 
> What law's that then?
> 
> Muppet, confine yourself to self-gratifying over your horse box, you know shoot about cycling.



http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070339


----------



## mr_hippo (30 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> No mr_hippo, two wheels were on the pavement. Your wrong.*Can you finish the sentence 'Your wrong....'* Watch as the car reverses back off of the pavement, you can see a slight bounce as the cars front right wheel comes off the pavement, followed by the left wheel. I look forward to you admitting you were wrong
> *I will admit when I am wrong if I am wrong but, in this case, I am not!*
> I don't follow what you mean by this '_What a very strange reaction, waiting for the car to come back!_' Please expand on this and I will answer your point. *If you did not wait, please explain:-*





magnatom said:


> he then went down a side street to loop back around to carry on in his original direction.


and is that the same as:-


magnatom said:


> After he drove away he actually did a big circle to go back the way he was originally heading (I didn't quite catch that on camera).*How convenient!*


----------



## LLB (30 Apr 2008)

Maz said:


> This aint Soapbox, fellas.



As you will duly recognise with my post for magnatoms reference Maz.


----------



## spindrift (30 Apr 2008)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070339

there's nothing there that says magna broke the law.


----------



## spindrift (30 Apr 2008)

I repeat, what law is magna supposed to have breached?


----------



## LLB (30 Apr 2008)

spindrift said:


> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070339
> 
> there's nothing there that says magna broke the law.



Why the verbal diarrhoea then ?


----------



## spindrift (30 Apr 2008)

_Why the verbal diarrhoea then ?_

Because claiming dishonestly that magna broke the law wastes peoples' time pointing out your error, is a slur on magna, and disrupts the debate.


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Not a personal dig so don't take it that way magnatom, but you filtered up alongside the silver estate car (toyota ?) on the pedestrian crossing. It is an illegal manouver to do so, so not best practice if you are criticising someone elses on film.



No dig taken!  You'll notice that there are two lanes at the roundabout and in fact the bit of road I was on is treated as two lanes by cars (in fact I have seen two buses side by side at this point so plenty of space), although there aren't any markings there. It would be dangerous for me to sit behind the car because that is effectively the right turn lane and I would have swerve to my left on approach to the roundabout and cars can approach that roundabout quite fast. I knew the car was turning right because of his road position. If he did decide to move over to the left I would have plenty of space and time to react and adjust accordingly. 

Anyway I don't think this would be classed as filtering as I didn't pass any cars, I pulled up beside a car, so not illegal I'm afraid!

Nice try linford. Not quite as amusing as hippo, but nice try


----------



## LLB (30 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> No dig taken!  You'll notice that there are two lanes at the roundabout and in fact the bit of road I was on is treated as two lanes by cars (in fact I have seen two buses side by side at this point so plenty of space), although there aren't any markings there. It would be dangerous for me to sit behind the car because that is effectively the right turn lane and I would have swerve to my left on approach to the roundabout and cars can approach that roundabout quite fast. I knew the car was turning right because of his road position. If he did decide to move over to the left I would have plenty of space and time to react and adjust accordingly.
> 
> Anyway I don't think this would be classed as filtering as I didn't pass any cars, I pulled up beside a car, so not illegal I'm afraid!
> 
> Nice try linford. Not quite as amusing as hippo, but nice try



Looking at it again, I'll happily stand corrected as I interpreted it as you passing in front of the car. As stated in the first post, not a dig, just an observation.


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Looking at it again, I'll happily stand corrected as I interpreted it as you passing in front of the car. As stated in the first post, not a dig, just an observation.



I didn't pass the car, the car remained on my right hand side. Remember my camera does not have a 180 degree field of view so you can't see the car when I am beside it. If you can see the car when my head is facing forward then it is ahead of me. 

(looking it up the camera has a 3.6mm lens which provides 72 degree visual field so to my left you can see 36 degrees not 90 degrees which would be required to see something next to me.)

Listen to the video, you can hear the car accelerate at the same time as me.


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

> Can you finish the sentence 'Your wrong....'



Ok then. Your wrong muppet.



> I will admit when I am wrong if I am wrong but, in this case, I am not!



So the bounce of the car as the front right wheel comes off the car does not suggest that you are wrong then?




> I don't follow what you mean by this 'What a very strange reaction, waiting for the car to come back!' Please expand on this and I will answer your point. If you did not wait, please explain:-



I think I understand this now (despite your very poor explanation) You think I waited until the car came around to see it pass again. No I did not. As I mention in the video I was turning right at this junction, into the side street. That is the street he goes down. I follow and I see him turn right and then in the distance as I continue to cycle, in my direction, I see him turn right again. I'll admit I assume that he turns right again, but I don't think that is a huge leap to make. 

Blimey you have issues don't you mr_hippo. You seem to know a bit about prozac (not everyone would know that it is used for anger management as well as depression). Your not on it yourself are you?


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2008)

You're.

;P


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're.
> 
> ;P



Oh bog off! I'm a scientist. I only got a C for higher English. I don't proof read my posts the same way I would a paper, blah........


----------



## col (30 Apr 2008)

Watching the vid,the only thing i can think of that might have annoyed them,is you held primary,even when there was a couple of places you could have moved over to let them pass?So getting the reaction possibly?


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

col said:


> Watching the vid,the only thing i can think of that might have annoyed them,is you held primary,even when there was a couple of places you could have moved over to let them pass?So getting the reaction possibly?



Hi Col,

Haven't disagreed heard from you in a while .

Where could I have pulled over? I move at a fair pace and by the time I move in, it would have been time to move back out again. Also note the big green bus up ahead that would have blocked him anyway. 

Nah. I think it was just his time of the month.....


----------



## MERV (30 Apr 2008)

domtyler said:


> It has to be said Magnatom, you certainly do seem to go looking for it!



Stop winking it's true.


----------



## MERV (30 Apr 2008)

col said:


> Watching the vid,the only thing i can think of that might have annoyed them,is you held primary,even when there was a couple of places you could have moved over to let them pass?So getting the reaction possibly?




Ok I know im not perfect with my road positioning...(I've been told many times) but I do actually believe that *sometimes* primary is not always the answer.Yes I know nor is secondary/defensive.


----------



## col (30 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Hi Col,
> 
> Haven't disagreed heard from you in a while .
> 
> ...



Iv been working new hours ,and tend to just lurk a lot now
I know to keep your pace it means not moving into gaps that would mean pulling out again in a couple of seconds,but crossing the roundabout,i would have been on the left of the lane and secondary as i exited too,giving them a chance to pass maybe,and a little further there seemed to be a gap long enough to let them pass,but only if your not wanting to keep the pace granted,but something i would probably have done.


----------



## MERV (30 Apr 2008)

I mean motorists turn into raging loonies at any little thing so if you are blocking them in I tend to detect a dodgy overtake coming up.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2008)

MERV said:


> Ok I know im not perfect with my road positioning...(I've been told many times) but I do actually believe that *sometimes* primary is not always the answer.Yes I know nor is secondary/defensive.



Some of us might even believe that most of the time it's not the right place to be. Especially not if filtering past hundreds and hundreds of cars in the queue. Most of my commute doesn't demand primary, but some of it does!


----------



## MERV (30 Apr 2008)

Fairy Nuff!


----------



## magnatom (30 Apr 2008)

col said:


> Iv been working new hours ,and tend to just lurk a lot now
> I know to keep your pace it means not moving into gaps that would mean pulling out again in a couple of seconds,but crossing the roundabout,i would have been on the left of the lane and secondary as i exited too,giving them a chance to pass maybe,and a little further there seemed to be a gap long enough to let them pass,but only if your not wanting to keep the pace granted,but something i would probably have done.



There is no way I would take a secondary position on that roundabout. I would get squeezed. I would also have to negotiate my way back to primary at the pinch point at the exit of the roundabout. Not a particularly safe maneuver. I'd much rather annoy someone behind me than risk being squeezed at the exit of the roundabout!!


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2008)

Col, I think in this specific example you would be riding too submissively and risking more incidents than Magnatom with your suggested strategy. This is defo a case where Magnatom is right to take the lane.


----------



## col (30 Apr 2008)

Im not saying he is wrong,just i would do it differently,i would slow and let someone right behind me pass at those two points i mention,if they were not right behind i wouldnt.Being right doesnt mean its the best way.Even at two into one laners i look back,and get the go ahead of the car behind,no grief,just a polite gesture,same on roundabouts,ill look and get a wave on after i point where i want to be and give a thumbs up ,saves loads of friction,and cancels out temper flares.It does mean i slow regularly to do these things,but i am the slower vehicle,and think i should allow faster ones to pass when i can,iv never had a bad word yet.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2008)

That's why I said in this specific example. If I were riding a lot slower, I might well pull to the side, but that's plainly not a good idea at Magnatom's speed. I don't mind compromising my progress on the road a little to make it easier for someone else, but there are limits to how much delay I'll inflict on myself when it's only to assuage the impatience of a motorist behind, who'll pass me anyway in a few seconds and is unlikely to have lost any time overall.


----------



## MERV (30 Apr 2008)

Varies what I do on a rounderbout.Depends on the circumstances/traffic.


----------



## col (30 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's why I said in this specific example. If I were riding a lot slower, I might well pull to the side, but that's plainly not a good idea at Magnatom's speed. I don't mind compromising my progress on the road a little to make it easier for someone else, but there are limits to how much delay I'll inflict on myself when it's only to assuage the impatience of a motorist behind, who'll pass me anyway in a few seconds and is unlikely to have lost any time overall.




I dont think it would be difficult to slow"at mags speed" it isnt warp you know.but like iv said,i dont mind slowing to let a vehicle close behind me pass,its the staying in the middle of the road that causes flare ups i think,even if the car is going to be held up later,that isnt the point really.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2008)

To do so at Magnatom's speed is certainly possible, but that's beyond what I and I think most other cyclists would consider reasonable behaviour to allow cars past. There's very little time and space in any of the video in his OP to allow an overtake, and it would mean slowing to a complete stop.


----------



## col (30 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> To do so at Magnatom's speed is certainly possible, but that's beyond what I and I think most other cyclists would consider reasonable behaviour to allow cars past. There's very little time and space in any of the video in his OP to allow an overtake, and it would mean slowing to a complete stop.



Yes i would say it is possible tooA complete stop?Not reallyI also dont see it as unreasonable,but then it springs to mind a previous argument,who are we to think we shouldnt be delayed a few seconds?There isnt really an argument here,mag prefers to hold his line and speed,which he has every right to,i will give way,and slow if needed.Who gets the temper flares and shouted at?It seems to me that if everyone was willing to use the roads in a more giving way,it would be a safer place.And im sure if i slow to do this,it doesnt add much to my journey in time taken?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> It's certainly an option Mike, but I actually find Mr_hippos posts mildly entertaining. Not quite up to bonj standard (his early days standard) but none the less entertaining!



He's on my ignore list too - along with simoncc - they are the only ones, and from the look of it, I made the right decision.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Apr 2008)

You're assuming Magnatom gets more abuse and dangerous driving than you do, but I wonder if that's really true since I doubt either of you collect any data or ride in the same situations? I know that I get less of both when I ride more assertively for the most part.

Besides which, if I had a choice, I'd take the abuse rather than dangerous incidents that threaten my life, and that's what Magnatom's strategy is all about.


----------



## col (30 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're assuming Magnatom gets more abuse and dangerous driving than you do, but I wonder if that's really true since I doubt either of you collect any data or ride in the same situations? I know that I get less of both when I ride more assertively for the most part.
> 
> Besides which, if I had a choice, I'd take the abuse rather than dangerous incidents that threaten my life, and that's what Magnatom's strategy is all about.




Not assuming anything BM,why do you assume that?Im going on what he has posted on youtube,and commented on here.As for me,well i havnt had any of what mag has had,and i do use busy roads,sometimes not,roundabouts,and fast ones too,really very similar to what most people use,but i think my style of riding is not the same,i wont hold a line,if i feel it could annoy or agravate and i could let something pass,i put myself at the wheel,and wonder what i would make of it?I also ride assertively when the need arises,but im not fixed on my rights,and dont assume that all vehicles are impatient to pass,but i still give them the opertunity if i can.Im worried about your style,if you feel your life is threatened on a regular basis,something is wrong if you feel your life is in danger?
What i have noticed a lot,is the people who say they had a dangerous incident,are the ones with cams a lot of the time,and generally have the stick to your guns attitude,which i feel can cause annoyance to drivers if its not odvious why.Im not saying thats wrong,just an observation.


----------



## mr_hippo (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> I think I understand this now (despite your very poor explanation) You think I waited until the car came around to see it pass again. No I did not. As I mention in the video I was turning right at this junction, into the side street. That is the street he goes down. I follow and I see him turn right and then in the distance as I continue to cycle, in my direction, I see him turn right again. I'll admit I assume that he turns right again, but I don't think that is a huge leap to make.


My poor explanation? It's made from your direct quotes! From my post - your quotes are in bold type:-

If you did not wait, please explain:- *"...he then went down a side street to loop back around to carry on in his original direction."* and is that the same as:- *"After he drove away he actually did a big circle to go back the way he was originally heading (I didn't quite catch that on camera).*"

Have I got this right? You have turned right into a side street. OK so far, next we have "I was turning right at this junction, into the side street. That is the street he goes down." i.e. the same street! So from the main road, he reverses and goes down the same street as you then you say " I follow and I see him turn right" So somewhere along the street he overtakes you because you said 'I follow...'. Are you related to either Walter Mitty or Tom Pepper?


----------



## bonj2 (1 May 2008)

What did he actually say? All I can hear is you shouting 'why did you toot me?'


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

Yeah I really did wonder what this was all about.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

bonj said:


> What did he actually say? All I can hear is you shouting 'why did you toot me?'



He said he would punch me off my bike in a perticularly agressive manner. Listen to the video it is pretty clear (all be it in a Glasgow accent!)


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> My poor explanation? It's made from your direct quotes! From my post - your quotes are in bold type:-
> 
> If you did not wait, please explain:- *"...he then went down a side street to loop back around to carry on in his original direction."* and is that the same as:- *"After he drove away he actually did a big circle to go back the way he was originally heading (I didn't quite catch that on camera).*"
> 
> Have I got this right? You have turned right into a side street. OK so far, next we have "I was turning right at this junction, into the side street. That is the street he goes down." i.e. the same street! So from the main road, he reverses and goes down the same street as you then you say " I follow and I see him turn right" So somewhere along the street he overtakes you because you said 'I follow...'. Are you related to either Walter Mitty or Tom Pepper?




Eh?

You have managed to get yourself in a complete cufudle! (mmmm, have I invented a new word?) Everything I have said makes complete sense. Why would he have to overtake me? He passes me at the end of the video and goes down the side street. As simple as that. And no. I am not related to you!


----------



## Origamist (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Eh?
> 
> You have managed to get yourself in a complete cufudle! (mmmm, have I invented a new word?) Everything I have said makes complete sense. Why would he have to overtake me? He passes me at the end of the video and goes down the side street. As simple as that. And no. I am not related to you!



I think you're looking for KERFUFFLE. A lovely word and a lexicographer's favourite...


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Origamist said:


> I think you're looking for KERFUFFLE. A lovely word and a lexicographer's favourite...



No definitely cufudle! Thought it was a new word!


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> He said he would punch me off my bike in a perticularly agressive manner. Listen to the video it is pretty clear (all be it in a Glasgow accent!)



The only thing that looks to have caused this threat is that he felt you were blocking his way,Im not saying your wrong,just that its something to think about?


----------



## mr_hippo (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> You have managed to get yourself in a complete cufudle! (mmmm, have I invented a new word?) Everything I have said makes complete sense. Why would he have to overtake me? He passes me at the end of the video and goes down the side street. As simple as that.


You have finally flipped and tied yourself in knots! Complete sense? Complete nonsense! Try re-reading your posts.


----------



## Arch (1 May 2008)

I've come late to this thread, and haven't watched the clip, but I'd just like to confirm that I idolise magnatom so much, I keep a photo of his brain under my pillow....



I'll bugger off again now...


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Hmm, I think you're simply writing off and ignoring dangerous incidents and abuse, because I'm simply not believing that you don't get them to a roughly similar ratio that the rest of us do.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Hmm, I think you're simply writing off and ignoring dangerous incidents and abuse, because I'm simply not believing that you don't get them to a roughly similar ratio that the rest of us do.




I dont think i could ignore a dangerous incident?Dont get me wrong,i do have my share of moments,but no where near as much as some.Your perogative to not believe me,but iv never been shouted at or threatened,in fact the opposite,it tends to be a wave or smile. I put it down to my style of riding.I suppose if i pushed primary more,then i might?


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're assuming Magnatom gets more abuse and dangerous driving than you do, but I wonder if that's really true since I doubt either of you collect any data or ride in the same situations? I know that I get less of both when I ride more assertively for the most part.



The difference is that Magnatom films his ride, and puts up incidents that interest him. That brings focus and attention, which your ride is missing. I'm sure we could find just as much of interest if you filmed all of your riding too.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The difference is that Magnatom films his ride, and puts up incidents that interest him. That brings focus and attention, which your ride is missing. I'm sure we could find just as much of interest if you filmed all of your riding too.




your assuming a lot BM,i can assure you,compared to mags,and by the sound of it,yours,my riding is very boring as far as confrontation is concerned.Im puzzled as to why you have such a hard time accepting that i dont get the grief you get?


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

I'm sure the tale would be very different if we had 6 months of your riding footage to look at. I'm still not sure why you think Magnatom gets a lot of grief either, tbh.


----------



## goo_mason (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I'm sure the tale would be very different if we had 6 months of your riding footage to look at. I'm still not sure why you think Magnatom gets a lot of grief either, tbh.



Because he's riding through Glasgow !


----------



## domtyler (1 May 2008)

Am I the only one here who has niggling doubts that col actually cycles?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I'm sure the tale would be very different if we had 6 months of your riding footage to look at. I'm still not sure why you think Magnatom gets a lot of grief either, tbh.




Because your sure,ill Ill have to stop telling porkies eh?
Like i said BM,im going on what he has posted,and to me thats a lot of griefHave you not seen what he has posted over time?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

domtyler said:


> Am I the only one here who has niggling doubts that col actually cycles?






I commute most days,


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 May 2008)

I agree with Col. 

Seems to me like Magna gets far more grief than I get, based on what he reports on CC. In fact, even if he only reported half of the incidents he reports, it would still seem like a lot.

Like Col, I can only assume that it's to do with something Magna is doing that I am not, whether it's road positioning, expectation that he will be wronged, presence of camera, raised profile etc.

It's sod all to do with Glasgow; I commuted in Glasgow for 7 years there and found it similar in terms of incidents to where I commute now. No worse, no better.

I see what you're saying BM, and it's arguable whether or not Magna's habits are "safer" than mine on the road, but I've yet to meet with minor or major mishap <touches wood> and don't have anything like the aggro that Magna reports. I think Col has a point.

My Dad had a pal who was known as The Insurance Man. They used to take him on trips because if anything unfortunate happened, it was guaranteed to happen to him. Hence the name.


----------



## domtyler (1 May 2008)

col said:


> I commute most days,



Prove it, let's see the vids!


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

domtyler said:


> Prove it, let's see the vids!




I could get a complex with the number growin that says im lieing you know


----------



## domtyler (1 May 2008)

col said:


> I could get a complex with the number growin that says im lieing you know



Come on col, you can't chicken out now, you're already in too deep. Strap your camera to your handlebars and record a trip, we need that footage!


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

domtyler said:


> Come on col, you can't chicken out now, you're already in too deep. Strap your camera to your handlebars and record a trip, we need that footage!




I dont have one,unless someone wants to lend me one,so i can clear the tarnish of my name


----------



## domtyler (1 May 2008)

Any digital camera will do for one trip, or are you saying that you don't have a digital camera, video cam or even a mobile phone in your household?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

domtyler said:


> Any digital camera will do for one trip, or are you saying that you don't have a digital camera, video cam or even a mobile phone in your household?




I do yes,i have a coolpix 3200,its an old one,but my fave,even above more expensive and higher spec ones iv had.


http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/nikon3200.html


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Folks, have a look at all of my videos. Exclude all of the videos that are of people on mobile phones, people weeing in the gutter, pedestrians walking out in front of me (surely I can't be blamed for that!), cars/cyclists running red lights, pavement cyclists, poor cycling by cyclists....

Then how many videos are we left with which could be called an incident where I could possibly (even remotely possibly) been at fault. 

I've had a count (bit more detailed and probably accurate than previous).

I have 51 videos in total (not all public). Of those 22 are incidents as described above. In only 5 videos did I receive abuse from a driver. 3 of those was because I asked them why they had driven the way they did. (at no point did I swear at them). The other 2 were completely unprovoked. 

I started recording using my ATC at the start of February 2007. Therefore I have had a camera for just approaching 16 months. I cycle 5 days a week, although I do have the odd day off here and there. I have 6 weeks holiday a year (I only took 5 last year) so assuming on average I cycle 4 days a week when I am at work (conservative) I have probably cycles to and from work approximately 346 times. This works out that I have an incident every 142 miles of urban cycling. Of course as Mike has suggested in nearly all of these incidents I had the situation under control and was not in danger of injury. These are probably the sort of incidents, had I not videoed them that I would have forgot about them. I post them so I and everyone else can learn from them.

This works out at 6.4% of my commutes where I have an incident that I post on the web. In fact if you consider that I actually have two commutes a day (to and from work) that means 3.2%. 

5 incidents of abuse gives 1.4% (dual commute figure of 0.7%). 

So for those who suggest that I have loads of incidents, have a look at the figures. Would you agree they tell a different story?

It really annoys me (I don't take it personally or hold it against anyone but...) when people suggest that I am at fault for incidents where I am taking a central road position. Forget the reasoning behind it, even if there was no reason, any driver who comes across a cyclist in the middle of the road should deal with it without having to resort to endangering a cyclist. Suggesting that I am at fault, just for being where I am, is providing drivers with an excuse for driving poorly.


So can I ask my detractors to take a look at my figures and let me know how they can justify the tag that I am having an excessive amount of incidents.

Bah humbug...........


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (1 May 2008)

Oh, you and your figures, eh? 

Who needs figures when they're on a forum berating someone else's actions??


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Oh, you and your figures, eh?
> 
> Who needs figures when they're on a forum berating someone else's actions??



Remember I am a physicist. I could have produced graphs and complex equations (well I could of if I was any good with equations!). In fact, I think I can prove that col is a partial derivative of domtyler.....


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (1 May 2008)

I too am a Physicist, and I'll wager he's actually a sinusoidal wave traversing across Dom's brain at his body's resonant frequency, thus effecting what Dom says and does on an everyday basis.

Think about it, it explains a lot...


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

Mag,im not saying your wrong,just that some styles of riding can make drivers feel they are being held up without good reason or intent,which i feel raises their temperature.Also,if i had been shouted at a few times,it would make me rethink my riding style?What do you think?Or am i going to regret asking

Just caught the partial derivative bit,very good


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I too am a Physicist, and I'll wager he's actually a sinusoidal wave traversing across Dom's brain at his body's resonant frequency, thus effecting what Dom says and does on an everyday basis.
> 
> Think about it, it explains a lot...



Oh yes. Quite relevant to some of my work actually. col is a dielectric standing wave resulting in significant inhomogeneities within Doms brain. This could be corrected by applying dielectric pads on the outside of his head (possibly with force)


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> Mag,im not saying your wrong,just that some styles of riding can make drivers feel they are being held up without good reason or intent,which i feel raises their temperature.Also,if i had been shouted at a few times,it would make me rethink my riding style?What do you think?Or am i going to regret asking
> 
> Just caught the partial derivative bit,very good



But do you agree that the perception of me being continually involved in incidents isn't borne out by the numbers?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

So i WILL regret asking?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> But do you agree that the perception of me being continually involved in incidents isn't borne out by the numbers?



The numbers dont matter really,what does is that you seem to get shouted at and threatened,more than most.Iv never had that,so i can only conclude that its the difference in our riding style?


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Sorry col, I didn't answer your question there. I will not change my cycling style, because the fault does not lie with me. It is a minority of drivers who can't cope with what is actually taught nationally as safe cycling. That is not being pig headed. My logic is, that I am safer that way. Just listen to the reports of cyclists being killed. Rare, but it does happen. Cycling as I do, mitigates this. Yes it may irritate some idiots, but I will not compromise my safety for idiots. If they are irritated by me (remember only a minority are), then they have seen me.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> The numbers dont matter really,what does is that you seem to get shouted at and threatened,more than most.Iv never had that,so i can only conclude that its the difference in our riding style?



Of course the numbers matter. You are saying that I get shouted at more than most! I have provided figures that in fact I have been shouted at 5 times in 16 months, and only two of them when I was in motion. How can you possibly say, looking at the figures which don't lie, that I get shouted at more than most?

Do you have figures for how often most get shouted at?


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Come on, you can't be confusing this tale of woe with the facts!!!


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

col said:


> Mag,im not saying your wrong,just that some styles of riding can make drivers feel they are being held up without good reason or intent,which i feel raises their temperature.Also,if i had been shouted at a few times,it would make me rethink my riding style?What do you think?Or am i going to regret asking
> 
> Just caught the partial derivative bit,very good



Basically I try and keep out of the way if possible and most of the time it works.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Sorry col, I didn't answer your question there. I will not change my cycling style, because the fault does not lie with me. It is a minority of drivers who can't cope with what is actually taught nationally as safe cycling. That is not being pig headed. My logic is, that I am safer that way. Just listen to the reports of cyclists being killed. Rare, but it does happen. Cycling as I do, mitigates this. Yes it may irritate some idiots, but I will not compromise my safety for idiots. If they are irritated by me (remember only a minority are), then they have seen me.



Thats my point too,you wont change style because its not your fault.I understand your stance,but i have adapted my style to coexist relatively peacefully on the road,and im sure you will still be seen.Giving way and letting pass,or even asking a driver to let you go with a point and thumbs up will probably make you still visible,but in their eyes,in a positive way,and it wont cross thier minds,why is he blocking my way?Like you said,some are ignorant of the reasons you do certain things,so if your sticking to your guns,then expect more shouting,its that simple.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> Thats my point too,you wont change style because its not your fault.I understand your stance,but i have adapted my style to coexist relatively peacefully on the road,and im sure you will still be seen.Giving way and letting pass,or even asking a driver to let you go with a point and thumbs up will probably make you still visible,but in their eyes,in a positive way,and it wont cross thier minds,why is he blocking my way?Like you said,some are ignorant of the reasons you do certain things,so if your sticking to your guns,then expect more shouting,its that simple.



Fair enough, but you are putting yourself at increased risk by doing so. That is a compromise that I am not willing to make and should not be expected to make.

I'll ask it one more time col, do you agree that the perception that I am involved in a lot of incidents, looking at the figures, is wrong? Yes or no!


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Of course the numbers matter. You are saying that I get shouted at more than most! I have provided figures that in fact I have been shouted at 5 times in 16 months, and only two of them when I was in motion. How can you possibly say, looking at the figures which don't lie, that I get shouted at more than most?
> 
> Do you have figures for how often most get shouted at?





No i dont have figures,but it seems that way.I have never been shouted at or threatened,in thirty odd years of cycling,granted there was a gap of a few years.Blimey mag,you even had other forums verbally attacking and possibly threatening you because of your riding style?Surely all this would make you at least think about how you ride?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Fair enough, but you are putting yourself at increased risk by doing so. That is a compromise that I am not willing to make and should not be expected to make.
> 
> I'll ask it one more time col, do you agree that the perception that I am involved in a lot of incidents, looking at the figures, is wrong? Yes or no!



I dont believe i do,in fact when showing that im making efforts to help them,i get better treated by them.
The figures do say to me that your shouted at more than i have ever been,so on that basis,no


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> No i dont have figures,but it seems that way.I have never been shouted at or threatened,in thirty odd years of cycling,granted there was a gap of a few years.Blimey mag,you even had other forums verbally attacking and possibly threatening you because of your riding style?Surely all this would make you at least think about how you ride?



No col. Go and read the other forums. I was being shouted at and abused for being a cyclist and daring to suggest that we deserved respect and a little room. I was also being accused of being a drink driver and for getting bus drivers sacked, all of which was slanderous and lies. Go and read the threads. You'll be surprised how little abuse related to road position.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Fair enough, but you are putting yourself at increased risk by doing so. That is a compromise that I am not willing to make and should not be expected to make.
> 
> I'll ask it one more time col, do you agree that the perception that I am involved in a lot of incidents, looking at the figures, is wrong? Yes or no!



Magnatom, a perception is a perception. I hold the same perception as Col. If Col and I perceive this to be the case, then it's not wrong. Do you follow?

If you genuinely get irritated by people commenting on your vids who hold different perceptions to you then you know what you shouldn't do

Lastly, your "stats" are all about you. They neither prove NOR DISPROVE that you get shouted at more than most. Surely even a physicist can follow that?


oh yeah, I just remembered why I replied to this post; you say Col (and I suppose me) puts himself at increased risk and yet Col (and I) have happily not met with serious incident. Not really a valid statement then, is it?


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> I dont believe i do,in fact when showing that im making efforts to help them,i get better treated by them.
> The figures do say to me that your shouted at more than i have ever been,so on that basis,no



Yes but you claimed that I was shouted at more than most. Feel free to back this up, if you can!


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

> Fair enough, but you are putting yourself at increased risk by doing so. That is a compromise that I am not willing to make and should not be expected to make.



What sort of risks? P*nct*res,Potholes Left Hooks?

Im pretty sure if you block a motorist in at the wrong time it will lead to a negative incident.

We all know what they are like.They will do a dangerous overtake and then stop 50 yards up the road at traffic lights IMHO.

Seen it time and time again.Basically when im out there my riding style doesn't really differ a lot other cyclists.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (1 May 2008)

I got asked today if I had a deathwish by some t*sser in a white van because (I presume) I took the primary position in the second lane to go from traffic lights on a three lane road (third lane is for turning right only) round to the left onto a four lane road for which I needed to be in the third lane (2 go straight on, 2 bear toward the right). 

When I asked him what the problem was he just shouted 'Cock' at me. I retorted with a friendly gesture and intimated that perhaps he was a student who excelled in the art of onanism, and we parted company.

I did nothing wrong, and as Mags says, had I taken the more submissive route of staying over to the left in the first lane I'd have been hard pressed to cross the traffic round the corner to get to the third lane required.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

MERV said:


> What sort of risks? P*nct*res,Potholes Left Hooks?
> 
> Im pretty sure if you block a motorist in at the wrong time it will lead to a negative incident.
> 
> ...



Ok lets look at Col's advice for roundabouts. Cycle in the secondary position. This would encourage overtaking on a roundabout, which could (and I have seen this happen but not to me) result in a car pulling off the roundabout and cut across your path, placing you in significant danger. This is what Col suggests I should do at this roundabout. Would you agree that taking secondary could encourage this behavior and conversely by taking the primary position discourage it?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (1 May 2008)

I see many people on bikes going exceedingly slowly right next to the pavement/verge, swerving in and out of parked cars as the need arises without a care in the world. 

The cars manage to avoid them, but some get close to the cyclist. They're never shouted at though as traffic just passes them by and they have no chance of catching it back up. 

If you are (and I'm not assuming this is the case) such a rider then maybe you haven't had much verbal grief. If you are such a rider and haven't had any near misses then I can only assume you are very lucky.

Mags rides at speed and forces car drivers to think about how they pass him, thus 'creating' tension in their minds as they can't simply drive past and forget all about the cyclist (which in all honesty some may not even have registered). It is the correct approach but, as I know only too well, can cause friction with drivers who see themselves as the only ones worthy of being on the road.

Different styles, different outcomes... 

</rant>


----------



## domtyler (1 May 2008)

We are looking at two different ends of the spectrum here. col (and MERV) are both taking an old skool, passive and submissive strategy, avoiding confrontation at all costs and accepting a small hit in safety levels. Magnatom, like myself are both a little younger and more assertive, staking our place on the road and demanding respect.

The submissive guys don't get shouted at because they are conforming to the motorists idea of where cyclists should be and are mostly ignored. In fact, I am confident that if you stopped and asked most of the motorists if they had passed any cyclists recently a mile after passing them, most drivers would have zero recollection.

Magna gets an earful every now and again because he is daring to confront the traditional idea of where a cyclist should be in the road, i.e. in the gutter and "Out t'****in way lad".


----------



## Cab (1 May 2008)

domtyler said:


> Magna gets an earful every now and again because he is daring to confront the traditional idea of where a cyclist should be in the road, i.e. in the gutter and "Out t'****in way lad".



He (like many of us) is trading a quiet life for improved safety. It may seem like a small improvement in safety, when you consider that many cyclists manage to ride very passively (with great care!) for years with no accidents. But thats the nature of assessing risk; you're wrong if you assume that because you've been doing things a certain way with no accidents it is equally safe to another way of doing things, because you're a sample size of 1. You need to consider the bigger picture when assessing risk.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> oh yeah, I just remembered why I replied to this post; you say Col (and I suppose me) puts himself at increased risk and yet Col (and I) have happily not met with serious incident. Not really a valid statement then, is it?




It's quite valid when you remember just how safe cycling is. We're talking about a very small risk that's being reduced still smaller by proper cyclecraft. The risk is so small that you'd likely only see the difference over a large number of cyclists in a recorded study. Perhaps it's a little like the difference between driving here in the UK, and in France. Quite a bit more dangerous in France, but not so as any one of us is likely to notice by ourselves. That small risk is still worth taking action over.


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

Err what was the question again?


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Cab said:


> He (like many of us) is trading a quiet life for improved safety. It may seem like a small improvement in safety, when you consider that many cyclists manage to ride very passively (with great care!) for years with no accidents. But thats the nature of assessing risk; you're wrong if you assume that because you've been doing things a certain way with no accidents it is equally safe to another way of doing things, because you're a sample size of 1. You need to consider the bigger picture when assessing risk.



Funnily enough I found I was getting a lot less abuse from irritated drivers when I started riding more assertively.

p.s. most of magnatom's video and forum abuse comes from the outrage of drivers who don't think it's fair that their failures are held up for the world to see on his camera. That bit of quiet life is certainly being traded in, but I'd also venture that many of these drivers wouldn't dare to drive like the nobends they are anywhere near Magnatom's camera.


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

> We are looking at two different ends of the spectrum here. col (and MERV) are both taking an old skool, passive and submissive strategy, avoiding confrontation at all costs and accepting a small hit in safety levels. Magnatom, like myself are both a little younger and more assertive, staking our place on the road and demanding respect.


I wouldn't really say at all costs.Believe me sometimes I lose it out there with the comedians boy racers and god knows what.

Yes I do ride a bit of Primary but when I can start to trust motorists then perhaps I could ride in a different way.

Cant say I really trust motorists with some of them it would be like trusting a looney with a gun.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> No col. Go and read the other forums. I was being shouted at and abused for being a cyclist and daring to suggest that we deserved respect and a little room. I was also being accused of being a drink driver and for getting bus drivers sacked, all of which was slanderous and lies. Go and read the threads. You'll be surprised how little abuse related to road position.




But all cyclists dont ride in your style,or go by your ideals on cycling?,in an ideal world everyone would make allowances to all.But life isnt like that is it?And making your points on cycling,in the way you have been,instigated the reactions,not only on the road,but on the forums too,so it seems?So we have to start somewhere,and i try to,hence i dont get threatened,and a driver doesnt loose their temper,and i dont feel the need to show a cctv on the web,that was possibly caused by the way i cycled?Even though i agree with your reasons,and what you would like to happen for all cyclists,until the masses are educated about it,it could be seen as ignorant to other road users,hence the reaction?


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

I agree with a lot of reasons for riding in Primary all? the time and in a perfect world it would work.


----------



## Origamist (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> It's quite valid when you remember just how safe cycling is. We're talking about a very small risk that's being reduced still smaller by proper cyclecraft. The risk is so small that you'd likely only see the difference over a large number of cyclists in a recorded study. Perhaps it's a little like the difference between driving here in the UK, and in France. Quite a bit more dangerous in France, but not so as any one of us is likely to notice by ourselves. That small risk is still worth taking action over.



Where is the evidence that so called "proper cyclecraft" reduces risk? And more appositely, what is "proper" cyclecraft?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Yes but you claimed that I was shouted at more than most. Feel free to back this up, if you can!




ok,it seems that you are to me.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

No Col, you're not getting threatened and abused on forums and youtube because you're not posting videos of people driving and behaving badly, and you're not up in the public eye through some news articles.

Your debate seems to be confusing this abuse with the quite different abuse that comes on the road.

You also seem to be losing sight of the fact that I (and I assume magnatom also) often let drivers through when it's safe for us to do so. I certainly get loads of goodwill when doing this, and I'm sure none of us would like to hold up drivers unnecessarily. After all most of us are drivers sometimes too.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> But all cyclists dont ride in your style,or go by your ideals on cycling?,in an ideal world everyone would make allowances to all.But life isnt like that is it?And making your points on cycling,in the way you have been,instigated the reactions,not only on the road,but on the forums too,so it seems?So we have to start somewhere,and i try to,hence i dont get threatened,and a driver doesnt loose their temper,and i dont feel the need to show a cctv on the web,that was possibly caused by the way i cycled?Even though i agree with your reasons,and what you would like to happen for all cyclists,until the masses are educated about it,it could be seen as ignorant to other road users,hence the reaction?



So how do we educate the masses. Would you suggest that we ride submissively until someone produces a huge advertising campaign that shows drivers what should happen, then all of a sudden drivers realise that they should allow us to cycle in the primary position, and within days all cyclists are cycling as they should, assertively. I suggest col (in the nicest possible way of course! ) that it is you who is not living in the real world. People learn through experience and repeated exposure. The more cyclists that cycle assertively, the more that drivers will realise that that is the norm and drive accordingly. It is drip, drip, drip, but over time things do change. That is reality.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Origamist said:


> Where is the evidence that so called "proper cyclecraft" reduces risk? And more appositely, what is "proper" cyclecraft?



You started this one before with Cab, who I seem to recall dispatched your argument rather well. Back then the ball was in your court to show how it doesn't work.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You also seem to be losing sight of the fact that I (and I assume magnatom also) often let drivers through when it's safe for us to do so.



Absolutely, I don't post the videos, but it is a rare day for me not to have reason to thank drivers for their generosity and good driving.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

MERV said:


> I agree with a lot of reasons for riding in Primary all? the time and in a perfect world it would work.




I do to,if we were going the same speed,and were not holding anyone up.But unless we can do this,all we do is make a driver wonder why we are blocking there way,and tempers start,especialy if there is opertunity to let them pass and we dont.Really its as simple as that i think.


----------



## domtyler (1 May 2008)

col said:


> But all cyclists dont ride in your style,or go by your ideals on cycling?,in an ideal world everyone would make allowances to all.But life isnt like that is it?And making your points on cycling,in the way you have been,instigated the reactions,not only on the road,but on the forums too,so it seems?So we have to start somewhere,and i try to,hence i dont get threatened,and a driver doesnt loose their temper,and i dont feel the need to show a cctv on the web,that was possibly caused by the way i cycled?Even though i agree with your reasons,and what you would like to happen for all cyclists,until the masses are educated about it,it could be seen as ignorant to other road users,hence the reaction?



The 'Cyclecraft' way of riding does not rely on motorists having read the book or studied the techniques. If you want proof that it works, take a look at every single report of a cyclist being in a collision and tell me how they were riding.

While it gives no guarantees, there will be far fewer "Cyclecraft" riders having been killed or seriously injured.

You may be scared of being driven into from behind and being shouted at or abused, but these things are very very rare, it is being doored, left hooked, cut up etc. that cause the damage and that is what good confident riding mitigates.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> It's quite valid when you remember just how safe cycling is. We're talking about a very small risk that's being reduced still smaller by proper cyclecraft. The risk is so small that you'd likely only see the difference over a large number of cyclists in a recorded study. Perhaps it's a little like the difference between driving here in the UK, and in France. Quite a bit more dangerous in France, but not so as any one of us is likely to notice by ourselves. That small risk is still worth taking action over.



Good to put it in context like that, good post. It would serve EVERYONE well to remember this; both those who follow Cyclecraft to the letter and those who don't. 

What would be REALLY* interesting would be a study which tracks different styles of roadcraft across the same course at the same time of day, to see which style attracts the most aggression, perceived danger etc from motorists and other commuters. Say a cross-section of this forum's commuters, followed by a recording device of some sort... <drifts off into ponderdom>

* well, relatively


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 May 2008)

Origamist said:


> Where is the evidence that so called "proper cyclecraft" reduces risk? And more appositely, what is "proper" cyclecraft?



My study is called for!


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Good to put it in context like that, good post. It would serve EVERYONE well to remember this; both those who follow Cyclecraft to the letter and those who don't.
> 
> What would be REALLY* interesting would be a study which tracks different styles of roadcraft across the same course at the same time of day, to see which style attracts the most aggression, perceived danger etc from motorists and other commuters. Say a cross-section of this forum's commuters, followed by a recording device of some sort... <drifts off into ponderdom>
> 
> * well, relatively



LOL! Yes, I think that would be the key, measurement, because right now all the anger and aggression measurement is coming from perception, rather than real measured incidents.

I know my own experience: that my perceived level of aggressive driving and incidents went down after I started riding more assertively. (At first I too was a gutter nutter, not knowing any better).


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You started this one before with Cab, who I seem to recall dispatched your argument rather well. Back then the ball was in your court to show how it doesn't work.



Actually to some extent I think origamist is right in that we probably can't prove it. As I am sure you are aware origamist, this is a difficult area to study and produce conclusive results, especially because, as Bentmikey has pointed out, cycling is so safe to begin with. However, I would suggest that experience and knowledge counts for something. This is something that I would suggest that the people behind bikeability have. 

In my own experience I find it works as well. Some of my earlier videos show me being squeezed on approach to a particular junction on a few occasions. I was riding in the secondary position on these occasions. I changed my riding after advice on here (some from bentmikey) so that I took the primary position earlier and I stopped having similar incidents. I find that if I am lazy on occasion and take a more submissive position that cars pass me closer.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> So how do we educate the masses. Would you suggest that we ride submissively until someone produces a huge advertising campaign that shows drivers what should happen, then all of a sudden drivers realise that they should allow us to cycle in the primary position, and within days all cyclists are cycling as they should, assertively. I suggest col (in the nicest possible way of course! ) that it is you who is not living in the real world. People learn through experience and repeated exposure. The more cyclists that cycle assertively, the more that drivers will realise that that is the norm and drive accordingly. It is drip, drip, drip, but over time things do change. That is reality.




Good points,BUTin the nicest way possible,i think you need to see the reality.Those drip drip drips,are exactly that,in a massive ocean that doesnt even notice the difference.So how about this?let the schools at some point,and i know it could take a very long time,to start educating on this,instead of you sometimes getting threatened or squeezed of the road,or even knocked over by an incompetant driver,while your busy trying to educate the masses,because it will take you even longer to do this in my opinion,but the school way,i know eventually,is safer all round isnt it?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (1 May 2008)

Col, I can see a flaw with the school plan. I _think _the majority of motorists don't go to school any more.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> Good points,BUTin the nicest way possible,i think you need to see the reality.Those drip drip drips,are exactly that,in a massive ocean that doesnt even notice the difference.So how about this?let the schools at some point,and i know it could take a very long time,to start educating on this,instead of you sometimes getting threatened or squeezed of the road,or even knocked over by an incompetant driver,while your busy trying to educate the masses,because it will take you even longer to do this in my opinion,but the school way,i know eventually,is safer all round isnt it?




Ummm errr, my drip, drip, drip has ended up in the Sun (3 times!) in national TV (Scottish) and will, when they pull their finger out , result in a feature article in the Herald. You'd be surprised how much water is wasted each year because of taps drip, drip, dripping......


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 May 2008)

FWIW, 3 things need to happen:

Proper "cycle-craft" and "Road-Safety" needs to be taught in schools.
The above needs to be re-enforced by driving schools.
Stiffer penalties for unsafe driving/causing injury/death on the roads


----------



## Origamist (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You started this one before with Cab, who I seem to recall dispatched your argument rather well. Back then the ball was in your court to show how it doesn't work.




No, Cab refused to enter into a reasoned debate, citing internet anonymity as a justification for avoiding examining his beliefs vis a vis cycling and road safety. 

BM, I don't have to prove anything as it is not I who is making unsubstantiated claims about risk and safety. The ball is in your court.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Actually to some extent I think origamist is right in that we probably can't prove it. As I am sure you are aware origamist, this is a difficult area to study and produce conclusive results, especially because, as Bentmikey has pointed out, cycling is so safe to begin with. However, I would suggest that experience and knowledge counts for something. This is something that I would suggest that the people behind bikeability have.
> 
> In my own experience I find it works as well. Some of my earlier videos show me being squeezed on approach to a particular junction on a few occasions. I was riding in the secondary position on these occasions. I changed my riding after advice on here (some from bentmikey) so that I took the primary position earlier and I stopped having similar incidents. I find that if I am lazy on occasion and take a more submissive position that cars pass me closer.



I think we all take a primary or assertive position at times like these with experience and mistakes made,but im talking about like your last vid,where you might have,if you wanted,let the car behind pass,but you didnt want to,because you were doing nothing wrong,and i agree,but the driver behind you didnt see it that way.


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

> (At first I too was a gutter nutter, not knowing any better).


???

Slightly patronising?

Such a short post says a thousand words about you BM.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> I think we all take a primary or assertive position at times like these with experience and mistakes made,but im talking about like your last vid,where you might have,if you wanted,let the car behind pass,but you didnt want to,because you were doing nothing wrong,and i agree,but the driver behind you didnt see it that way.



Did you read one of my earlier posts where I talked about your suggestion, i.e. you were suggesting that I allow an overtake on a roundabout? Do you agree that by cycling in secondary on a roundabout suggests to following drivers that it is safe to overtake and could result in a car cutting across your path?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Ummm errr, my drip, drip, drip has ended up in the Sun (3 times!) in national TV (Scottish) and will, when they pull their finger out , result in a feature article in the Herald. You'd be surprised how much water is wasted each year because of taps drip, drip, dripping......



But just think,if the same efforts were made to do what Fab has said,it would be country wide almost straight away,with no wastage of water at all,as every single person leaving school would be aware of it,and then all new drivers too.



Fab Foodie said:


> FWIW, 3 things need to happen:
> 
> Proper "cycle-craft" and "Road-Safety" needs to be taught in schools.
> The above needs to be re-enforced by driving schools.
> Stiffer penalties for unsafe driving/causing injury/death on the roads




Thats it,simple as that,well may be not,but thats a real solution.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Origamist said:


> No, Cab refused to enter into a reasoned debate, citing internet anonymity as a justification for avoiding examining his beliefs vis a vis cycling and road safety.
> 
> BM, I don't have to prove anything as it is not I who is making unsubstantiated claims about risk and safety. The ball is in your court.



If I recall correctly, you implied that there were significant problems with vehicular cycling, and then refused to cite studies and sources.

Given that this is the first I've seen of this issue despite much reading, that it's not even close to as visible as the helmet debate, and that it goes against what many experts suggest, I'd suggest the onus is all on you if you want to do any convincing.

Seriously, I'd love to see why you think that it's a poor approach, and for you to substantiate what you're saying. Bear in mind I started out on one side of the helmet debate, and was unwillingly convinced that I was wrong by the evidence, so my mind is more open than you might give me credit for.


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

What magna said in an earlier post.You know when it is safe to ride primary/secondary and know the different tactics to use when you have ridden a route for a number of years.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Did you read one of my earlier posts where I talked about your suggestion, i.e. you were suggesting that I allow an overtake on a roundabout? Do you agree that by cycling in secondary on a roundabout suggests to following drivers that it is safe to overtake and could result in a car cutting across your path?





i meant to slow enough so you could have let him pass after the roundabout,where there was a gap before parked cars,then similar after that,but only if you dont mind slowing?Thats what im trying to get at,BM has argued you might have to stop,i cant see you having to do that,but slowing enough would let them go on their way,and everyone would be happy,and all you did was loose a few seconds?do you see what im trying to get at?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Col, I can see a flaw with the school plan. I _think _the majority of motorists don't go to school any more.





Good point,a drastic rethink is needed


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

The answer isn't Primary.The answer isn't Secondary.

The answer is a blend of the two and knowing how/when to use them.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

MERV said:


> The answer isn't Primary.The answer isn't Secondary.
> 
> The answer is a blend of the two and knowing how best to use them.




I think thats well put,but i would also add,be well mannered on the road,it does get better results,by that i mean,if you can,let cars pass,and why worry about slowing to do it,unless your in training,but i guess you wont hold anyone up then anyway


----------



## Origamist (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> If I recall correctly, you implied that there were significant problems with vehicular cycling, and then refused to cite studies and sources.
> 
> Given that this is the first I've seen of this issue despite much reading, that it's not even close to as visible as the helmet debate, and that it goes against what many experts suggest, I'd suggest the onus is all on you if you want to do any convincing.
> 
> Seriously, I'd love to see why you think that it's a poor approach, and for you to substantiate what you're saying. Bear in mind I started out on one side of the helmet debate, and was unwillingly convinced that I was wrong by the evidence, so my mind is more open than you might give me credit for.



No, BM. I have never said there were "significant probelms" with VC. I doubt you are wilfully misrepresenting my remarks, but it does your argument little credit.

What I object to is people making unsupported claims about "proper cyclecraft" and its ability to reduce accident rates when there is no meaningful data available to prove or disprove this supposition.


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

Well mannered yes.Took me about twenty years to learn that.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

col said:


> i meant to slow enough so you could have let him pass after the roundabout,where there was a gap before parked cars,then similar after that,but only if you dont mind slowing?Thats what im trying to get at,BM has argued you might have to stop,i cant see you having to do that,but slowing enough would let them go on their way,and everyone would be happy,and all you did was loose a few seconds?do you see what im trying to get at?



I think your sentiment is great, and I too would have pulled in for the motorist if it had been safe and convenient to do so.

At the roundabout in the video, however, I don't think there's anywhere nearly long enough or safe enough to pull over for the motorist, at least not without slowing down to a near or complete stop behind one of the parked cars. Slowing from 15 to a stop and starting again is more effort than I'd be willing to give in that situation, especially when I was about to turn right, and any real delay to the motorist can't have been more than 5 seconds. Squeezing up to the parked cars to allow the following car to overtake wouldn't be an option for me - risk of dooring and risk of him having to swerve in for oncoming traffic is just too much for my comfort.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> I think thats well put,but i would also add,be well mannered on the road,it does get better results,by that i mean,if you can,let cars pass,and why worry about slowing to do it,unless your in training,but i guess you wont hold anyone up then anyway



The funny thing is, this is exactly what I do, which is why I am confused about some of the criticism I receive. Remember, the videos I post tend to happen at 'incident hotspots' i.e., I know in advance where they tend to occur. Therefore, this is where I take more assertive positions on the road. So my videos are biased towards places where I am in the primary position. There are stretches of my commute where I am in secondary for the majority of it. you don't tend to see that much because these are not 'hotspots'. 

Look back at my historical posts on here, you will find countless posts from me where I suggest that I move over and let cars pass where safe to do so.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Origamist said:


> No, BM. I have never said there were "significant probelms" with VC. I doubt you are wilfully misrepresenting my remarks, but it does your arguement little credit.
> 
> What I object to is people making unsupported claims about "proper cyclecraft" and its ability to reduce accident rates when there is no meaningful data available to prove or disprove this supposition.



That was my impression from your previous post, perhaps I was mistaken? Why don't you spell out your stance on this issue to make it clear to all? Are you aware of evidence that it is unsafe or bad practice?


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Origamist said:


> No, BM. I have never said there were "significant probelms" with VC. I doubt you are wilfully misrepresenting my remarks, but it does your arguement little credit.
> 
> What I object to is people making unsupported claims about "proper cyclecraft" and its ability to reduce accident rates when there is no meaningful data available to prove or disprove this supposition.



Have you ignored my reply to you?


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Am I the only one who is quite enjoying this thread. Plenty of debate, and yet everyone seems to be getting on without arguing. 

I bet there are others who have looked at this thread and gone


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> The funny thing is, this is exactly what I do, which is why I am confused about some of the criticism I receive. Remember, the videos I post tend to happen at 'incident hotspots' i.e., I know in advance where they tend to occur. Therefore, this is where I take more assertive positions on the road. So my videos are biased towards places where I am in the primary position. There are stretches of my commute where I am in secondary for the majority of it. you don't tend to see that much because these are not 'hotspots'.
> 
> Look back at my historical posts on here, you will find countless posts from me where I suggest that I move over and let cars pass where safe to do so.



I knew a very polite lad at work,a great mate he was,a real gentlemen,but when he thought he was right there would be no compromise,no give at all in his opinion,and was immovable on his stance.Which tended to wind people up,even if he was in the right.All im saying is,a little give would save a lot,in some situations


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Am I the only one who is quite enjoying this thread. Plenty of debate, and yet everyone seems to be getting on without arguing.
> 
> I bet there are others who have looked at this thread and gone



No im still here.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

col said:


> I knew a very polite lad at work,a great mate he was,a real gentlemen,but when he thought he was right there would be no compromise,no give at all in his opinion,and was immovable on his stance.Which tended to wind people up,even if he was in the right.All im saying is,a little give would save a lot,in some situations



Col, I think you will find I have given on a number of occasions. For example, in my video where I was overtaking and the car coming the other way stopped, as if it had been blocked, I conceeded that the driver may have thought I was turning etc. In fact I no longer overtake on that stretch when there is oncoming traffic. Have you ever 'given'?


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

MERV said:


> No im still here.



Actually, I'm just about to leave. I've had time to post, because I have had data transferring which has held me back from doing anything else, and I am way too tired to read some papers (youngest has a nasty virus, so very little sleep last night).


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

The thing is that people in a car are protected by a big metal box so when they hit you it tends to hurt you more then it hurts them and also I don't trust half of the buggers.What exactly does BMW mean?

Am i right or am I right?


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I think your sentiment is great, and I too would have pulled in for the motorist if it had been safe and convenient to do so.
> 
> At the roundabout in the video, however, I don't think there's anywhere nearly long enough or safe enough to pull over for the motorist, at least not without slowing down to a near or complete stop behind one of the parked cars. Slowing from 15 to a stop and starting again is more effort than I'd be willing to give in that situation, especially when I was about to turn right, and any real delay to the motorist can't have been more than 5 seconds. Squeezing up to the parked cars to allow the following car to overtake wouldn't be an option for me - risk of dooring and risk of him having to swerve in for oncoming traffic is just too much for my comfort.




There would have been no need to stop,if you slowed as you round the roundabout in secondary,there would have been ample time and space for it to pass before you reached the parked cars,and you would still be able to carry on.The right turn was further down the road,and i cant see how it would have been a problem to make the turn?I suppose i am willing to make an effort.


----------



## Origamist (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That was my impression from your previous post, perhaps I was mistaken? Why don't you spell out your stance on this issue to make it clear to all? Are you aware of evidence that it is unsafe or bad practice?



Yes, you were mistaken. 

Why is it that you feel you need to know my stance? My questions are valid without a potted biog of my cycling _modus operandi _and they remain unanswered.

As I have stated, I have no evidence that VC is unsafe or is bad practice.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Col, I think you will find I have given on a number of occasions. For example, in my video where I was overtaking and the car coming the other way stopped, as if it had been blocked, I conceeded that the driver may have thought I was turning etc. In fact I no longer overtake on that stretch when there is oncoming traffic. Have you ever 'given'?



I do give yes



magnatom said:


> Actually, I'm just about to leave. I've had time to post, because I have had data transferring which has held me back from doing anything else, and I am way too tired to read some papers (youngest has a nasty virus, so very little sleep last night).




I know your worry,my son has whooping cough,for the last week or so,iv had two nights sleep in that time,the rest has been laying waiting and listenning for him,very scary when he cant breath,and is struggling with his waist getting sucked behind his tummy muscles,and he is rock hard.horrible week here too.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

col said:


> There would have been no need to stop,if you slowed as you round the roundabout in secondary,there would have been ample time and space for it to pass before you reached the parked cars,and you would still be able to carry on.The right turn was further down the road,and i cant see how it would have been a problem to make the turn?I suppose i am willing to make an effort.



You see this is something I'm very uncomfortable with - being in secondary and sharing the lane whilst on a roundabout. They tend to be amongst the more dangerous of junctions, and I just don't want to be out of the most visible place in the road, and with a car next to me as well whilst we're both turning.

From previous posts, it seems that we actually think and ride quite similarly, but draw the line at slightly different compromises. I think you're more willing to slow down and help the motorists overtake you, and I'm less willing to compromise my own safety, but it's probably only a fairly subtle difference, rather than a completely different philosophy. Does that sound fair to you?


----------



## Nigeyy (1 May 2008)

Still reading......



magnatom said:


> Am I the only one who is quite enjoying this thread. Plenty of debate, and yet everyone seems to be getting on without arguing.
> 
> I bet there are others who have looked at this thread and gone


----------



## Origamist (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Have you ignored my reply to you?



Apologies, I must have missed it. I am off on my bike now.


----------



## col (1 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You see this is something I'm very uncomfortable with - being in secondary and sharing the lane whilst on a roundabout. They tend to be amongst the more dangerous of junctions, and I just don't want to be out of the most visible place in the road, and with a car next to me as well whilst we're both turning.
> 
> From previous posts, it seems that we actually think and ride quite similarly, but draw the line at slightly different compromises. I think you're more willing to slow down and help the motorists overtake you, and I'm less willing to compromise my own safety, but it's probably only a fairly subtle difference, rather than a completely different philosophy. Does that sound fair to you?




It does yes,but i didnt see a problem on that particular roundabout,as it was clear to the left,and wide enough for a safe pass in my opinion


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2008)

Origamist said:


> Yes, you were mistaken.
> 
> Why is it that you feel you need to know my stance? My questions are valid without a potted biog of my cycling _modus operandi _and they remain unanswered.
> 
> As I have stated, I have no evidence that VC is unsafe or is bad practice.



Fair enough on being mistaken, my apologies. On your own stance, I think it's very relevant and don't think you can be credible without being open and honest about it. Good to hear your admission about there being no evidence that VC is more unsafe than other methods, or bad practice.

What are the two biggest causes of KSIs in London? HGV left hooks and doorings. Both of these are easily avoided through proper cyclecraft, and for me that's plenty of evidence to show that it's the right approach to take.


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

Origamist said:


> Apologies, I must have missed it. I am off on my bike now.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Arch said:


> I've come late to this thread, and haven't watched the clip, but I'd just like to confirm that I idolise magnatom so much, I keep a photo of his brain under my pillow....
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bugger off again now...



Missed this earlier Arch, just catching up.

I should point out that my brain is only my second best organ. Would you like a photo......

I'll get me coat, a big long black coat.....


----------



## tdr1nka (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> I'll get me coat, a big long black coat.....




I was under the impression you were one of those 'men in white coats'?


----------



## HJ (1 May 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> It's a 'penalty' for living in civilisation.



No living in a civilised country is NOT having to put up with behaviour like that. You really have a poor grasp of reality if you think that is civilised or rational behaviour.



mr_hippo said:


> Looking at the video again, the motorists allegedly 'toots' at poor Magnatom who is annoyed for some reason, does not complete the right turn, stops the bike in a dangerous position and screams at the driver. This is not rational behaviour, is it?



There is nothing to suggest that Magnatom was annoyed. In what way was the bike in a dangerous position??


----------



## gambatte (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> I should point out that my brain is only my second best organ. Would you like a photo......



He could be right!

http://foundation.unlv.edu/payroll











"an organ aficionado and *magna* cum laude graduate"


----------



## HJ (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Oh bog off! I'm a scientist. I only got a C for higher English. I don't proof read my posts the same way I would a paper, blah........



Do you reply to all your referees comments like that


----------



## HJ (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Of course the numbers matter. You are saying that I get shouted at more than most! I have provided figures that in fact I have been shouted at 5 times in 16 months, and only two of them when I was in motion. How can you possibly say, looking at the figures which don't lie, that I get shouted at more than most?
> 
> Do you have figures for how often most get shouted at?



Is there a statistician in the house we need a P value for this.... come to think of it there is no adequate control either. We need a volunteer to ride the same route the same number of time in the most submissive manor possible, carried a camera and compare the number of incidents....


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Now you guys are just starting to take the proverbial pee....




















Good show!


----------



## MERV (1 May 2008)

Has magnatom been upsetting the cagers again?


----------



## Crackle (1 May 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I was under the impression you were one of those 'men in white coats'?



Wot, with the arms that buckle up behind 

Right sorry, I'm going back to lurking ........


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

MERV said:


> Has magnatom been upsetting the cagers again?



Actually I had to drive to work today (half day due to slightly ill wean, poor wee mite!). I like driving home from work every once in a while just to remind myself of why I enjoy commuting by bike so much. Crawling traffic all the way home. Why do folk drive short or shortish distances?!?


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2008)

Crackle said:


> Wot, with the arms that buckle up behind
> 
> Right sorry, I'm going back to lurking ........



Now, now, lurkings not allowed. Unless of course you don't agree with me....


----------



## tdr1nka (1 May 2008)

Crackle said:


> Wot, with the arms that buckle up behind
> 
> Right sorry, I'm going back to lurking ........



No no no, I meant men in white coats wot administer them long sleeve jackets wot do up at the back. 'They're coming to take me away' etc, etc.


----------



## Crackle (1 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Now, now, lurkings not allowed. Unless of course you don't agree with me....



In one fell swoop, he has me unfurl my colours or be declared an enemy of the fan club 

I shall do so: You rode well, I agree entirely with BM's comments on your positioning. 

The guy in the car was a bully and a coward.


----------



## mr_hippo (2 May 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> No living in a civilised country is NOT having to put up with behaviour like that. You really have a poor grasp of reality if you think that is civilised or rational behaviour.
> *So I take it that you have never driven or cycled too close to anyone or anything and that you have not accidentally bumped into anyone or anything when walking.*
> In what way was the bike in a dangerous position?? * Stopped at a road junction - a very safe place to stop and talk!*





magnatom said:


> I cycle 5 days a week, although I do have the odd day off here and there. I have 6 weeks holiday a year (I only took 5 last year) so assuming on average I cycle 4 days a week when I am at work (conservative) I have probably cycles [sic] to and from work approximately 346 times.


You are not very precise for a scientist, are you? From Feb 2007 to May 1 2008, did you cycle 346 days or 173 days?
Let’s call it 4.5 times a week and a start date of 1/2/07, should we? If we divide 346 or 173 by 4.5 that will give is the number of weeks that you cycled.
346 days divided by 4.5 will give you 76.88 weeks plus you had 5 weeks off, that’s a total of 81.88 weeks or 573 days. Adding 573 days to 1/2/07 will give us 27/8/08.
173 days divided by 4.5 will give you 38.44 weeks plus the 5 you had off will give us 43.44 weeks or 304 days. Adding 304 days to 1/2/07 will give us 2/12/07.
Your posting date was not 27/8/08 nor was it 2/12/07.So the remainder of your 'stats' post is flawed as well!

We seem to have two schools of thought here; one wants to 'coexist relatively peacefully on the road' whilst the other is more aggressive and does not want to make compromises! If you drive aggressively then you can expect aggression in return but if you cycle with courtesy and consideration then you can expect that it will be returned (does not always happen!).
There is also the 'knock-on effect' to aggressive cycling - you have 'annoyed' the motorist so what does he do to the next cyclist he sees? He shouldn't but he does!


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=99XaRuD7Y1U


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DDvzADNR9dA


The above videos were taken from just one of my rides - shot November 2, 2007 between 0630 and 0800. What do you see? Cycles and motorcycles heading towards me on the same carriageway, traffic cutting across my bows, turning onto the main road without checking oncoming traffic and that's just for starters. 
You quickly learn your commute route, know the hazards and the daily traffic flow pattern - so is there any need for aggressive cycling? Learn to be assertive without being aggressive, considerate and courteous. Remember that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!


----------



## tdr1nka (2 May 2008)

From what I see of the video Bangkok has consistency to it's driving, a bit hairy mind but fairly easy to predict after some experience, I would imagine.

Are the Thai's normally agressive drivers by nature or just casual and foolhardy? Honest question btw.

To compare the expectation of trouble on the roads in Bangkok with that of Glasgow doesn't quite work for me as I'd imagine that driving has a different social and cultural identity in each country.

Mr.Hippo, just out of curiosity why is there an edit at 34 seconds into the first clip? 

View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=99XaRuD7Y1U

The point where it appears to start following the moped undertaking the stationary bus?


----------



## mr_hippo (2 May 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> *1)* From what I see of the video Bangkok has consistency to it's driving, a bit hairy mind but fairly easy to predict after some experience, I would imagine.
> *2)* Are the Thai's normally agressive drivers by nature or just casual and foolhardy? Honest question btw.
> *3)* To compare the expectation of trouble on the roads in Bangkok with that of Glasgow doesn't quite work for me as I'd imagine that driving has a different social and cultural identity in each country.
> *4)* Mr.Hippo, just out of curiosity why is there an edit at 34 seconds into the first clip?
> ...



1) You hit the nail on the head there! If I can predict what could happen and make allowances - why can't/don't other cyclists instead of whinging about it?
2) Honest question - honest answer. We have all types of drivers here. Why don't the majority of Thais check oncoming traffic when turning left onto a main road? Thai answer - "I am not turning right so I don't have to look right!"
3) The clips illustrate that I am subjected to close overtakes, cars pulling out, etc.
4) Both clips are edited highlights from just one ride - the whole video is 69 minutes long. In the main, traffic lights in Bangkok are manually operated so you get to know how long each set will be on red for. The bus was on a service run and would not be turning left. Using my knowledge and experience, I knew that I had enough time to scoot past the bus and reach the ASL and that the bus stops shortly after the lights. You can see what happens on 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNiJhk-lG58


----------



## BentMikey (2 May 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Mr.Hippo, just out of curiosity why is there an edit at 34 seconds into the first clip?
> 
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=99XaRuD7Y1U
> 
> The point where it appears to start following the moped undertaking the stationary bus?





LOL, yeah, I saw that too the last time he posted his video.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (2 May 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> Is there a statistician in the house we need a P value for this.... come to think of it there is no adequate control either. We need a volunteer to ride the same route the same number of time in the most submissive manor possible, carried a camera and compare the number of incidents....



zatly. As I said, harumph.

I've never been to a submissive manor.


----------



## mr_hippo (2 May 2008)

^ Oh, no , you didn't - that has not been on here before but I did make reference to it on the close overtake thread - post #158. You probably saw it on youtube but not here.
Did you read and understand "Both clips are edited highlights from just one ride - the whole video is 69 minutes long. In the main, traffic lights in Bangkok are manually operated so you get to know how long each set will be on red for. The bus was on a service run and would not be turning left. Using my knowledge and experience, I knew that I had enough time to scoot past the bus and reach the ASL and that the bus stops shortly after the lights. You can see what happens on 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNiJhk-lG58
"?


----------



## MERV (2 May 2008)

magnatom said:


> Now you guys are just starting to take the proverbial pee....
> Good show!




Yes.


----------

