# Closest overtake ever



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

This happened this morning.


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjz9EIbBsx0


I am in a full primary position traveling at close to 20mph (and still accelerating) when this chap overtakes. He was closer than I have ever had and I felt the need to lift my arm out of the way to avoid my elbow making contact!

Luckily I am a fairly experienced cyclist as I had to swerve the bike towards the left and stay balanced with the one hand (I felt it was better to move the hand out of the way than to be hit and possibly knocked off course, or off the bike!). I shudder to think what might have happened if I had wobbled at this point!

I am seriously considering reporting this. He didn't give me 3 inches, never mind 3 feet!!


Warning: Unsurprisingly there is some swearing in this clip!!


----------



## yenrod (8 Apr 2008)

T85 Tcs...


----------



## HLaB (8 Apr 2008)

You tube is blocked in the office, I'll check it out when I get home. I had my closest overtake for a while yesterday, followed by another , the stereotypical WVM and then about 500yards round the corner by the stereo typical blacked out 4x4.


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

yenrod said:


> T85 Tcs...



Thanks, I've already noted that.....


----------



## Maz (8 Apr 2008)

cant see utube at work, but glad you're ok.
will you be reporting the incident?
are the cops normally interested or not when you report incidents?


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

Maz said:


> cant see utube at work, but glad you're ok.
> will you be reporting the incident?
> are the cops normally interested or not when you report incidents?



I might report this one. It was WAY too close. It almost felt like the guy was intentionally passing close because I dared filter in front of him.


----------



## Cab (8 Apr 2008)

I'll be curious to know what happens if you do report it.

Its emerging here on Cycle Chat that the response of police forces to cases of dangerous driving like that are very variable. I'd certainly get nowhere taking that to Cambridgeshire Constabulary, but I wish you luck with your local plod!


----------



## spindrift (8 Apr 2008)

- very variable
+ shite on toast


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

I forgot to ask: Can anyone spot what is wrong with the Mercedes in front of me?


----------



## chthonic (8 Apr 2008)

*That still makes my heart leap*

every time I watch it.

I think maybe that guy knew he wanted to turn left ahead and thus "had" to get past you first at all costs. He didn't cut in a brake in the way they do when they are trying to punish you for being in primary.

Well done for not slapping it as it went past. I find myself doing it as a reflex and then having to deal with the huge argument that always ensues. Far better to film the number plate.

As for the Merc in front? His brake lights seem to be permanently on, no?


----------



## Eat MY Dust (8 Apr 2008)

That was _very_ close. Could have been a sore one!!!!


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

chthonic said:


> every time I watch it.
> 
> I think maybe that guy knew he wanted to turn left ahead and thus "had" to get past you first at all costs. He didn't cut in a brake in the way they do when they are trying to punish you for being in primary.
> 
> ...



Even if I wanted to, I don't think I would have had time to slap the car. (I wouldn't want to by the way!)

You are correct about the merc. I caught up with her later on and mentioned it. She didn't seem that bothered


----------



## chthonic (8 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> You are correct about the merc. I caught up with her later on and mentioned it. She didn't seem that bothered



If you can't see the problem, then why bother, eh? If there was a dashboard light that acted as a brake light tell-tale, you can probably guarantee it would be down the garage being fixed right now.

BTW, last time someone passed that close to me, he told me that I should have got out of the way because "he had priority". I left him and his priority stuck in the rushhour traffic.


----------



## Rab (8 Apr 2008)

Yikes

Just watched that, I have to say that was horrendous

Clearly this driver does not watch the Scottish News


----------



## biking_fox (8 Apr 2008)

Curious about your choice of positioning before the lights?

You filter between two lanes, and then stop a couple of cars back from the front. No ASL box I presume? but why not get in front, or else join at the back of the queue? 

I'm sure the driver was less than impressed at being chosen to be the one you blocked. 

On that road I would have been in secondary. Unless the road surface was dodgy? it looked ok.


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

Rab said:


> Yikes
> 
> Just watched that, I have to say that was horrendous
> 
> Clearly this driver does not watch the Scottish News



 Or maybe he saw this as an opportunity to get on TV!


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Apr 2008)

Drivers simply hate cyclists filtering.
If I'm right Mag, you filtered between the lines of traffic to remain in view of drivers and establish you were continuing straight on?

I tend to hold a primary space in a queue like this, wait my turn for the lights and no longer race to the front as I once did in my youth, although I don't think that would have mattered a jot in this instance.

The driver is quite evidently out to prove a point by getting in front of you
as soon as they damn well can.

Well held and yes, report it.


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Drivers simply hate cyclists filtering.
> If I'm right Mag, you filtered between the lines of traffic to remain in view of drivers and establish you were continuing straight on?
> 
> I tend to hold a primary space in a queue like this, wait my turn for the lights and no longer race to the front as I once did in my youth, although I don't think that would have mattered a jot in this instance.
> ...



If anything, I overtook the queue in the outside lane (you can see me look for following cars). I then looked for a safe gap and pulled in just to the right of the front wing of the escort. I find that this is in a nice visible position for the driver to see me. In fact as I passed I noticed the driver looking at me so I know he saw me. As the cars pull off I look back to check that he is holding back and letting me into the lane, which he did and then I took the primary, knowing that I tend to keep pace with the cars on this section (Today I was a little slower but not much!)

I feel safer doing that than pulling right to the front. In general it tends to antagonise the drivers less if you don't pull all the way to the front. It also means that you won't get caught out with a light change as you pull in front of the lead car.

Of course in this instance the chap must of got annoyed anyway, or he just couldn't be bothered waiting or pulling over. Either way, he gave me no respect and endangered me. When I get a chance I will report this, although it might be tomorrow.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

OK I'm going to stick my neck out and sound a note of dissent, so battlehats on.

What you did was cut in front of him at the queue same as the taxi driver clip. Now you may call that filtering I call it impolite and inconsiderate.

Consider if someone had done that in a car, you'd honk and beep and be rightly pissed off. Now I used to do it on a motorbike but then I'd accelarate faster than the traffic, not slower. On a cycle, I'd filter but move out of the way and once moving get back into the traffic stream. I never filter and push into the queue, not in a car, not on a motorbike and not on a cycle.

That does not excuse his driving by the way but quite honestly doing what you are doing is wrong in my view and if anyone says it's not, I very much doubt I'd agree with them.


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> OK I'm going to stick my neck out and sound a note of dissent, so battlehats on.
> 
> What you did was cut in front of him at the queue same as the taxi driver clip. Now you may call that filtering I call it impolite and inconsiderate.
> 
> ...



No need for battlehats. I'd be worried if everyone here did agree!

As I am sure you know filtering is perfectly legal. Of course it is the responsibility of the filterer to do it safely. I believe I usually do and I know that on this occasion that I did.

Normally at this junction (not on this occasion) the traffic tails back towards the lights and across the junction. On these occasions if I didn't filter I would be left out in the middle of the junction which for me feels dangerous. So I normally filter. On this occasion there was no overhang, so I probably could have sat at the back. However, I also don't like being the last 'vehicle' in the queue at these lights (I think I would have been on this occasion although I can't be sure). The cars behind (held back by other lights), tend to accelerate aggressively, so I like the protection of a stationary car behind me when the lights change. That is why I move down the line of traffic. You could certainly argue that this fear is unjustified, it probably is, however, I just don't like being exposed at that junction.

Leaving these lights I generally accelerate up to at least 25mph by the bottom of the hill. The road is a 30mph speed limit. So I really don't hold any law abiding driver up by more than a few seconds. I know that at the rate I cycle, I and several following cars can make it through the next lights on green, when the road is clear. When the road is not clear, we all get held up at the next lights. So my presence has a limited effect on everyone else.

Of course as you said, even if I did not need to filter and even if I annoyed that driver for some reason, there is no way that he had the right to drive as he did. If I did anything wrong it was very minor. His was far from it!

Just thought I would expand on why I did what I did! I wondered when someone woud mention the filtering!  What do you think crackle?


----------



## Rab (8 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Or maybe he saw this as an opportunity to get on TV!



That thought did cross my mind too


----------



## Odyssey (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> That does not excuse his driving by the way but quite honestly doing what you are doing is wrong in my view and if anyone says it's not, I very much doubt I'd agree with them.



Never been much of a road rider myself, so I don't know much about much. But as a driver too, I think you'd be more annoyed by a cyclist before the lights than after the lights. I think people will be much more likely to take risks just to get through the lights while they stay green. 

I do see the argument though and it was something I was wondering myself but I think it's just as case of having your own perception of what is right and wrong, relatively speaking rather than absolutely. And you'll find that's generally what causes road rage of any kind. I don't think you can win on this one because to some people you'll be wrong no matter what you do.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (8 Apr 2008)

The guy was an arse... if he was p*ssed at you for 'cutting in front' (which IMO you didn't) he'd have beeped at you and some gesticulation would also undoubtedly have ocurred... this was a simple case of him having no brain cell and being a sh*t driver.

Report him.

Insist it is taken further. 

I'd have been tempted to chase him and give him a piece of my mind (and perhaps my cleats... but I wouldn't condone such behaviour though!!)


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

Yes filtering is legal and yes you have the same right to the road as anyone else I am not disputing that. But what is legal and right may not be sensible, in this case I think your filtering, in particular where you stop is not sensible.

Here's what I would've have done, indeed have done for many years, just so you have a fair chance to critique me as well. Filter as you did but when I found my gap move in to the left of the car in a secondary position as it's now called. Traffic moves off, as do you, at a brisk pace. On moving off if the traffic moves off faster than you the driver has the option of going around you - at this point you are trusting the drivers judgement but hey you are anyway. If it moves off at the same speed you stay ahead anyway and can make a gradual move back to primary 'if necessary'. 

The difference: Well no.1 you are not 'invading his space' so you are more likely to be considered/tolerated, No.2 the traffic is moving slower, so if he does decide to go around you when he shouldn't, then everything is happening that bit slower as opposed to further down the road when it's all going a bit faster.

I also have to say, go further up the queue, no more than three cars back but probably one or two. The first two cars (in rush hour) normally move smartly away. The third and fourth tend to lag but after that everyone has seen the queue moving and they're all away quickly.

Key to all this is eye contact and reading the road. What's on the outside of the car who has to pass you, how much space does the driver have, how does he look etc...

Now I have to say I have not commuted in town traffic for over 10 years and things change, traffic has sped up, there's more cars on the road, people seem less patient but in my view that's even more reason to cycle sensibly.

The trouble is that drivers do not think you have an equal right to the road, so asserting it has to be done more subtly.

That's my view anyway, I'd better be prepared to defend it.


----------



## domtyler (8 Apr 2008)

He definitely deserved a Magnatom chop!


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> The guy was an arse... if he was p*ssed at you for 'cutting in front' (which IMO you didn't) he'd have beeped at you and some gesticulation would also undoubtedly have ocurred... this was a simple case of him having no brain cell and being a sh*t driver.
> 
> Report him.
> 
> ...



Actually, your probably right. At least you are about him not being annoyed at me (not about chasing him and cleating the car  ). When I looked back just before pulling of I glanced at him and he seemed completely non-plussed. I suppose he would have been aggressive towards me then if he was annoyed. I suppose he was just a poor driver.


----------



## domtyler (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle, I can't be bothered to read all of that garbage but if you are saying that cyclists shouldn't filter then you must have received a nasty bump to head lately, the ability to filter through long queues of traffic is one of the main benefits of cycling you arse. I may agree about where he stops though, I wouldn't ever stop like that unless the lights changed. Just go straight to the front where you can control what is happening better.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

I'll condense it for you dom: Filter but don't put yourself in a position where you're in the f@@kin way of a possible numpty.


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

domtyler said:


> Crackle, I can't be bothered to read all of that garbage but if you are saying that cyclists shouldn't filter then you must have received a nasty bump to head lately, the ability to filter through long queues of traffic is one of the main benefits of cycling you arse. I may agree about where he stops though, I wouldn't ever stop like that unless the lights changed. Just go straight to the front where you can control what is happening better.



We'll have to disagree on that one. I find it safer to hang one or two cars back. I think it is more dangerous to try and push to the front and cut in front of the front car, especially if the lights change as you are doing it. I have commented on my feelings about ASL's elsewhere.

Where I position myself is almost in directly in front of their line of view (slightly to the right). Generally when I put my foot down to balance that takes me slightly closer to their line of view as well.

Anyway, this has no bearing on the close overtake that happens a reasonable distance away from this spot.


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I'll condense it for you dom: Filter but don't put yourself in a position where you're in the f@@kin way of a possible numpty.



Avoid cycling on the roads then.....


----------



## Cab (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> Yes filtering is legal and yes you have the same right to the road as anyone else I am not disputing that. But what is legal and right may not be sensible, in this case I think your filtering, in particular where you stop is not sensible.
> 
> Here's what I would've have done, indeed have done for many years, just so you have a fair chance to critique me as well. Filter as you did but when I found my gap move in to the left of the car in a secondary position as it's now called.



Doesn't look like there is space to get into a secondary position there. You could get right on to the kerbside, but thats not secondary position, thats more timid again. Or, in other words, its roadkill. If you're to the left of the traffic that isn't moving then the cars don't have to move out to miss you, and they _won't_ move out. They'll _all_ (or most of them) will pass far too close.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

I disagree Cab: I have used this 'roadkill' position many times. On the face of it it may seem that but in fact in traffic where you are away as fast as the cars, you are quickly back into the traffic stream in the position you need. In fact I find people are more willing to leave you room to get back in, 'cause you haven't pissed them off in the first place.

Also Magnatom moved into a gap. He could've taken any position in that gap?


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I disagree Cab: I have used this 'roadkill' position many times. On the face of it it may seem that but in fact in traffic where you are away as fast as the cars, you are quickly back into the traffic stream in the position you need. In fact I find people are more willing to leave you room to get back in, 'cause you haven't pissed them off in the first place.
> 
> Also Magnatom moved into a gap. He could've taken any position in that gap?



Crackle see here (
View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6C8SEWII8gk
) to see why I take a strong position here. This cyclist nearly gets squeezed at the railings.


----------



## domtyler (8 Apr 2008)

I never like to leave myself in the position where I have to rely on the kindness and generosity of car drivers in order to make progress preferring a far more assertive stance.

My main problem with pushing in a few cars back is that you are effectively pushing into someone else's space and people generally don't like that. Going to straight to the front and you are in clear space, you don't unnecessarily piss people off and you are in a position to control what happens behind you.


----------



## Jaded (8 Apr 2008)

You can always look back and acknowledge the driver behind you. Eye to eye contact and a quick move off after the lights change can make a lot of difference to a driver whose space you have invaded. 

Many drivers don't see cyclists filtering as 'filtering'. The Highway Code talks about the relative speeds of lanes when it mentions filtering and it is difficult to say that the gap between cars is a 'lane'. Cyclists might see this as legal filtering but drivers may not.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

I don't think he's anywhere near getting squeezed. He stops at a gap between two cars and moves off with them. However he doesn't give the impression he's too clued up about riding a bike on the road. Not an example of what I mean.

And as Dom says, why not go to the front. The only time I wouldn't is if a lorry or bus was there whom I couldn't outpace and would therefore have to come past me again.

Pulling into a queue like you are doing is going to piss people off, it would me.

As for kindness and generosiy of drivers, most are considerate, though I can't speak for Londoners.


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I don't think he's anywhere near getting squeezed. He stops at a gap between two cars and moves off with them. However he doesn't give the impression he's too clued up about riding a bike on the road. Not an example of what I mean.
> 
> And as Dom says, why not go to the front. The only time I wouldn't is if a lorry or bus was there whom I couldn't outpace and would therefore have to come past me again.
> 
> ...



He is towards the end of the clip. Watch how the red car has to brake to allow him out where the barrier comes close to the road, just past the bus stop.


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Apr 2008)

Again I think a lot of drivers really hate cyclists or any other vehicle pushing in front of them.
I get grumbly when I'm at a red light and another cyclist pushes past me to track stand ahead of the lights or simply RLJ.

Looking at the vid again IMO I would have taken secondary in the gap behind the car that overtook you and signalled out into primary when the traffic started rolling, so as to avoid any left hook potential.

Wrong and dangerous tho it is I think the overtaking car assumed that you would pull into a secondary position and went for the first available gap without looking.

And as Jaded points out the are huge discrepancies between what is legal for cyclists to do and what drivers think it is legal for cyclists to do.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

Jaded said:


> You can always look back and acknowledge the driver behind you. Eye to eye contact and a quick move off after the lights change can make a lot of difference to a driver whose space you have invaded.



Absolutely. A nod, a raised hand, a smile, all will defuse a potential conflict. It also helps if you look absolutely shagged when you do it, then you get the sympathy as well. 

No but seriously Magnatom. Seven years city commuting and 3 years urban commuting, cycling for 30 years and I can count a handful of 'serious' incidents, you seem to have exceeded that in a year.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> He is towards the end of the clip. Watch how the red car has to brake to allow him out where the barrier comes close to the road, just past the bus stop.



I watched it a few times but couldn't make out enough detail but suffice to say, he's not a good example.


----------



## gambatte (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> Pulling into a queue like you are doing is going to piss people off, it would me.



Maybe you shouldn't be driving? 

Mags - I'd definitely contact police. Mention your recent 'history' and that the comment at the time, from them, was people should contact the police - so "here goes". Lets see if they actually do anything!!


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

gambatte said:


> Maybe you shouldn't be driving?



Oh what! So you don't agree, so you cast aspersions on my driving. Why don't you read what's written.

Try a reasoned argument. If you think Magnatom is doing it all right then why is he having so many encounters? He posts these for a response, I'm giving him one. You rubbing his back and cooing is not going to give any cause to think about his riding.

And I'm not saying I'm right by the way.

..and yes, the driver was a to$$er, I never said he wasn't.


----------



## spindrift (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle, you on a hiding to nothing here, magna did nothing wrong at all, the driver actually had to SLOW almost immediately after overtaking so my guess is this was a deliberate act of aggression. I'm getting a helmet cam because there are two or three incidents of dangerous stupidity on every single one of my 7 mile commute through East London, they are most certainly not as rare as you claim.

Pulling into a queue shouldn't "piss you off" at all, chill out dude and have a think about why you get so aggressive on the roads.


----------



## gambatte (8 Apr 2008)

No I read what you'd written thats what caused me concern, not with your driving, but your attitude behind the wheel - you stated you'd get pissed off by a cyclist filtering past

I keep an eye on my mirrors and position myself so if a cyclist should appear they can filter, good for 'em.

If another road user legally getting infront of you in this way 'pisses you off' you should examine your attitude behind the wheel?


----------



## Cab (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I disagree Cab: I have used this 'roadkill' position many times. On the face of it it may seem that but in fact in traffic where you are away as fast as the cars, you are quickly back into the traffic stream in the position you need. In fact I find people are more willing to leave you room to get back in, 'cause you haven't pissed them off in the first place.
> 
> Also Magnatom moved into a gap. He could've taken any position in that gap?



Then you disagree with what is normally the accepted practice that is, usually, taught to cyclists by instructors. You disagree with cyclecraft. Your perogative, but you're simply in error.


----------



## Cab (8 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> Try a reasoned argument. If you think Magnatom is doing it all right then why is he having so many encounters?



I have months like that too. Just seems to happen sometimes.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

Pissed off, does not equate to steaming anger and retribution, nor do I see how you can pass comment on my attitude based on not a lot really. 

I think I adequately explained why someone jumping in front of me would cheese me off, whether you're on a bike or in a car makes no odds. Here's my abiding unwritten rule of the road:- "Do not cause others to compensate for your actions". Apply that test to every incident and see if it passes.

My personal view, is that Magnatom's positioning after filtering is not conducive for a stress free life. I would do it differently as explained.

Spindrift, like I said 10 years out of city commuting so I acknowledge my experience may be out of date.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Then you disagree with what is normally the accepted practice that is, usually, taught to cyclists by instructors. You disagree with cyclecraft. Your perogative, but you're simply in error.



 I knew you'd say that. 

I daresay there are aspects I'd agree and disagree with if I did the course and read the book but experience would overule training in certain situations.

Talking of training, hands up if you don't cross your hands going around a corner in your car (actually I bet you don't)?


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Apr 2008)

I cross myself before I head out on the London roads!

But seriously, and this has been discussed on Magnatom's threads before, it is every cyclists perogative to ride according to Cyclecraft but until all drivers have read it and understand just how simply their driving can be refreshed to include cycles in their thinking we are stuck in a one way argument.
I have been cycling in London for years and have had more hairy incidents than I care to mention, almost all of these have been down to drivers who stolidly believe their presence on the road is 'legally' above mine and my personal safety.


----------



## HLaB (8 Apr 2008)

I tend to cycle in the same manner towards lights as magnatom looking for safe gap to stop in be an ASL or a gap in the queue depending on my knowledge/ visibility to the lights. If I'm in the traffic queue I try to accelerate at an equal speed to the car in front and I've never touch wood had a problem when I'm part of the queue. Sometimes at ASL's however, horns sound, some people are in a rush to get to the next traffic queue only seconds away (I don't think I ever been beeped when the road was clear); so I'm starting to prefer the former.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (8 Apr 2008)

_*"As I am sure you know filtering is perfectly legal."*_

I'm not saying it isn't but could you point me in the direction of where it says this is so?

Why didn't you adopt the secondary position when you pulled away from the lights?


----------



## atbman (8 Apr 2008)

I agree with Crackle

Just been looking thro' Cyclecraft and can't find anything which says filter up middle and then cut in front of a driver waiting in line who has left a gap which is just about a bike length.

If you had been that driver and left a car length between you and the vehicle in front and a car had come up on the outside and then squeezed in, would you be annoyed? I would be, because it would be discourteous. I wouldn't retaliate, as your overtaking driver did, but your behaviour triggered his - his overtaking was potentially dangerous, but yours was selfish.

If you have as many near misses as you appear to, then there is something wrong with your riding. In 23 years of year-round bike commuting, I didn't have as many problems with other road users as you appear to have had in a much shorter period.

If you show this to the police, they might take action against the driver, but it is just as likely that they'll give you a bollocking.

Justifiable self-righteousness requires that you be right, and both you and the driver were not


----------



## spindrift (8 Apr 2008)

_your behaviour triggered his_ 

Bollocks


----------



## cheadle hulme (8 Apr 2008)

The driver was an idiot but then drivers of old escorts usually are - you should have enough experience by now to appreciate that he/she would get wound up by a cyclist pushing in however legal it is. 

I wouldn't have waited in turn though if that was a junction I knew well though. Lets be honest,the only reason we filter is to push in and take advantage of our size.

Saunter up to the front and anticipate the lights, rolling through as they change. Either that or position yourself ahead of the lights but before the junction as others have suggested, possibly jumping them slightly if need be by clipping in as the other phase goes amber. Illegal crossing of white line and possible RLJ but nothing to get het up about.

I judge my own success in city cycling by the lack of dangerous conflict with fellow traffic. On this measure how good is your cycling?

I'm in no way exusing the drivers behaviour here - truly bad stuff - but your positioning could definitely been better.

There's good debate on this forum and all credit to you for publicising issues. There's no way I'd put some of the moves I pull on youtube!


----------



## goo_mason (8 Apr 2008)

That was scary - brown trouser moment if ever I saw one.

Funnily enough, I did the same filtering today for the first time, after I'd gone round some idiots stopped across the yellow hatching and blocking the road ahead. I was aiming to get to the front but the lights started changing as I was about two cars short of my goal. The only difference with me was that when the lights went green, the left-hand queue went about three car-lengths straight on and then turned off left and the right-hand queue went straight on. No-one took exception and no-one tried to do an 'Escort' on me.


----------



## HJ (8 Apr 2008)

Having experienced cars swinging across a bus lane to cut me up, I would say that only way to avoid dangerous conflict with fellow road users is to catch a bus. There are drivers out there who seriously think that cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road.

In this case he may well have been upset by Mag filtering up in front of him, but that was no excuse for dangerous driving, bulling people because you are bigger that them is wrong. 

Looking at the road layout and the speeds involved primary is the correct position to be in, cycling in secondary would only encourage overtaking followed by a left hook as drivers tend to misjudge the speed of cyclists who travel at more that 10mph.


----------



## magnatom (8 Apr 2008)

Blimey, this one has moved on. 

Ok, lets recap. I filtered. This is something I do on a regular basis in exactly the same way that I did on this video. I can think of only two occasions over the last 2 years 9 months where I have had any hassle involving this. Once where a taxi driver threatened to knock me off my bike, and on this occasion. I commute 5 days a week on very busy roads in a city where cyclists are very much the exception and where I have found over the last few years that a lot of drivers are in fact agressive towards us. Over that 33 month period I have placed online 47 videos of incidents (not all are public). Of these 20 of these (I counted) are not incidents involving me as such, but videos of guys weeing in the street, videos of pavement cyclists, videos of cycling through the clyde tunnel, videos of cars going through red lights etc. So over a period of 33 months I have had 27 incidents. 

So a rough back of the envelope calculation suggests that I have cycled on approximately (and I am being conservative here) 920 days to and from work. That suggests that I have an incident rate (some of which are actually fairly minor) of (in terms of days) of just under 3%. 

So it would appear that suggestions that I am always having incidents are far off the mark! People suggesting that they do not have incidents could be for a number of reasons. Maybe they are incredibly lucky and don't have incidents. Maybe they do have them, but 10 minutes later forget them. I know this happens because I sometimes look back at films and see things that I forgot happened. Memory is a funny thing (an area that I research). Or maybe, and I've seen this happen (see here, 
View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KaVHUrSvx-o
) some people are oblivious to the dangers surrounding them. 

I have stated exactly why I take the primary position here. I travel close to and sometimes faster than the prevaling traffic. I am traffic. I want to be seen and to discourage poor overtaking. What I can't post is the amount of times that I have prevented bad overtaking etc. I know that I have prevented daft manouvers on numerous occasions. My cycling isn't perfect, but I think it generally keeps me safe.

As to the fact that filtering is legal. I think the important question to ask here is, where does it say it is illegal? My knowledge of the law is not the best, but I beleive laws are generally written in the prohibitive sense. So DG show me where it says it is illegal.

I have discussed the fact on here before about me coming across as self righteous online. That is probably because of a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that I have to defend myself against what are sometimes stupid arguments (I am not suggesting that anyone on here is doing that, but have a look on youtube). However, I am certainly not self righteous. How many times have I posted mistakes I have made, how many times have I posted comments suggesting that I need to keep learning, that I am not perfect and that I don't have all the answers. People seem to blank out these comments.

With regards to this particular video I could have edited this just to show the pull off from the lights. I did not, because I wanted to put it into context, realising that some might question the filtering. How could placing your own cycling online and leaving it to public scrutiny be classed as being self righteous! I have changed my cycling because of previous comments on my videos, if I was self righteous would I do that!

Oh bugger this. I'm just grumpy tonight. It never usually gets to me.....

Im off.


----------



## Crackle (8 Apr 2008)

Now I feel guilty for starting the criticism, especially in light of what you've been through recently 

As far as memory though. I remember every hairy incident from the days I started cycling to school at 16 to the most recent one 18 months ago. I could list them in order, including major mistakes I've made, accidents I've had etc... They're imprinted.

Close overtakes (not like yours), stupid stunts, drivers not seeing me, no I don't remember all of them and some I don't count. Like the car who followed another I'd waved through at a passing place, leaving me a couple of feet room or the one who ignored me in the middle of the road at a cattle grid on a singletrack or the recent truck who dashed past me nearly hitting an oncoming lorry, I don't count them because i was alert to the danger and so in no danger, bail out plans had been made. You don't need to cycle in a city to face dangerous moments on a bike. It's the ones you can't mitigate for that are truly dangerous though.

Take it easy Magnatom, sleep well.


----------



## mr_hippo (9 Apr 2008)

Are we now getting into the realm of the vigilante cyclist? Two wheels good, four wheels bad? "I was almost hit by a car today" - is that the same as "I almost won the lottery"? Some videos do show examples of bad driving cycling.
magnatom says on the video that he was 'forced from primary to the gutter by the overtake.' Look at the gray car in front of the Escort. If magnatom was forced to the gutter then the gray car would have been seen further to the right in the shot. I admit that magnatom did change his line not by much and for less than a second.
The other video that I want to comment on was the one of the Peugot pulling out of the road on the right - 
View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pCT-vtLqw_0
. Were you aware by the position of the car that she may pull out? Did you adjust your speed and position? If not, why not? Please do not say that you had 'right of way', St Peter at the Pearly Gates is getting sick of that excuse!
Does the camera lie? Yes, it does! When I have time, I will compile a video of my apparent near-misses.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (9 Apr 2008)

I'm pretty sure that driver was drunk, aren't you Mag?


----------



## Nigeyy (9 Apr 2008)

Magnatom,

Battle helmets on, part II!

First, no excuse for what that driver did. There's no doubt about that. 
However, sorry, but I have to also make some comments about your cycling before it. First of all, let me relate a little story:

About 8 years ago I was giving a software architecture presentation about how I'd approached a problem. In the presentation, one guy just asked all the awkward questions, and what made it worse is as the presentation wore on, I was coming to the conclusion that he was voicing entirely valid concerns -and I mean really valid. And what he suggested as alternatives were better than what I'd proposed. It was a real bugger to realize that, especially mid way in a presentation.

So truth be told, if someone had given me knife, I'd have gone for him. All I can say is I took a deep breath (a really deep breath) and then came to some startling realizations: he was actually a decent guy (perhaps socially a little inept and lacking tact, but then again, he was a software guy) but what he was telling me was pure gold, and most importantly, correct. I put my mental knife down, swallowed my pride and embraced his ideas in the presentation. Why not? They were better than mine!

What I'm trying to say is what I'm about to write, try not to take it personally -just take it as another viewpoint. You've got to evaluate the worth of it.

I don't like cycling down the centre of 2 lanes of traffic (now granted I see your point of being hung out to dry in the middle of a junction, but i don't think from the video that would have happened), I think it potentially causes more issues than it solves. First, when I rode a motorbike, it's something I also did not do. Why? Well, the chances of getting doored go up as well as the chance that someone does not anticipate you being there. Yeah, sure it's the other driver's responsibility to look for you, but why put yourself in that situation?

Taking two scenarios and looking purely at probability:
1. you remain in primary/secondary leading up to the light and do not filter in the middle between cars 
What do you gain?
Consistency in that vehicles around you know where you are, and the fact that vehicles perceive you not as queue jumping.
What do you lose? Maybe a few seconds? A minute or two?

2. you filter down the middle, eventually entering a space in the left lane.
What do you gain?
Seconds at the traffic light, maybe minutes? Aren't we as cyclists always bemoaning the fact that some people just always are in such a hurry?
What do you lose?
The fact you are not anticipated to be where you are by some drivers
The fact you are more susceptible to dooring
The fact some people perceive you are queue jumping
The fact you must effectively change lane.

I just figure you have better probabilities with no filtering between lanes of vehicles. Now I know that some people will argue that what you did is legal (forgive me but I'm not sure it is or isn't since I'm a little out of touch with the highway code these days) and that it's other people's responsibility to drive appropriately, but I'm firmly in the school of Life, Department of Pragmatics. You're also perfectly entitled to go into a pub and go to any large drunk rugby player and ask them if they've questioned their sexuality, and I'm sure you're legally protected to do so in our society. Of course, the question is why would you? I know it's also other driver's responsibility to be aware of you filtering down the middle, but why entrust other drivers to that when you may not have to do that? I also appreciate some people may say that whether drivers perceive you as queue jumping or not is irrelevant as it's legal. My take again is that given all other factors and the fact that I might only lose a couple of minutes, I don't mind giving the impression I'm not queue jumping. Subservient? Yeah, but does it really matter in the big picture? By the way, I'm not against filtering, just don't like doing it between 2 lines of traffic and that close to a light or junction.

Anyway, Magnatom you have my highest regard for posting your videos and opening yourself to comments like this. Fortunately, I haven't got a camera


----------



## spindrift (9 Apr 2008)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> I'm pretty sure that driver was drunk, aren't you Mag?




There's two reasons for that kind of behaviour, inattention to the point of stupor or it was a deliberate act of aggression to "teach someone a lesson".

Both inexcusable.

And filtering isn't like picking fights in pubs nor is it illegal, don't be absurd.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I knew you'd say that.
> 
> I daresay there are aspects I'd agree and disagree with if I did the course and read the book but experience would overule training in certain situations.



You won't live long enough to have all of the possible types of accidents yourself, thats why personal experience is not sufficient to state that a particular form of behaviour must be safe. Bottom line, you're advocating a course of action that is demonstrably less safe than Magnatoms behaviour.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I have been cycling in London for years and have had more hairy incidents than I care to mention, almost all of these have been down to drivers who stolidly believe their presence on the road is 'legally' above mine and my personal safety.



Thats a slightly different thing though; motorists are never taught they are better than bikes, thats a phenomenon that arises due to identifying cyclists as being 'different', we're viewed as an outside group. Its a sad, depressing cultural phenomenon that also leads to racism, homophobia and other forms of prejudice. Quite simply, thats the level of irrationality we face. 

You don't get motorists out of that habit by training them that we're as 'legal' as them, you get them out of it by _demonstrating that we are the same_ as them, and by making examples of those who act out upon their prejudiced views; as a society we have to make it quite, quite clear that such behaviour is unacceptable.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> _*"As I am sure you know filtering is perfectly legal."*_
> 
> I'm not saying it isn't but could you point me in the direction of where it says this is so?



Could you please tell me where it says that you can wear green? Or where it tells you that you're allowed to smile while cycling? You're asking for a level of detail that does not exist in an easily accessed form written guidance for road use. 



> Why didn't you adopt the secondary position when you pulled away from the lights?



There is not space in that lane for a safe secondary position. Remember, secondary isn't right at the edge of the road, its a good foot and a half out (thats your arm, not your wheels). Take another look at the footage; primary or secondary there is no room for safe overtaking, so the correct thing to do is adopt primary to discourage unsafe overtaking.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

atbman said:


> I agree with Crackle
> 
> Just been looking thro' Cyclecraft and can't find anything which says filter up middle and then cut in front of a driver waiting in line who has left a gap which is just about a bike length.
> 
> ...




He isn't a car. Cars cannot filter through traffic like that, it is not safe to do so, it is therefore not allowed.

Bikes can. Its allowed, it is not rude, it is not unreasonable, and it adds nothign to the journey time of other road users, nor does it increase risk for them.

You would find it discourteous? Change your viewpoint then, because it is not supported by law, common sense or utility.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Are we now getting into the realm of the vigilante cyclist? Two wheels good, four wheels bad? "I was almost hit by a car today" - is that the same as "I almost won the lottery"?



No.

The former requires that someone do something stupid. The latter requires simple dumb luck.


----------



## Crackle (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> You won't live long enough to have all of the possible types of accidents yourself, thats why personal experience is not sufficient to state that a particular form of behaviour must be safe. Bottom line, you're advocating a course of action that is demonstrably less safe than Magnatoms behaviour.



Demonstrably? I could demonstrate it is safe and I disagree that Magnatom's behaviour in this instance, for that's all we're discussing, is the best.

As for your contention that experience alone is not enough, then upon what basis do people become experts. Through experience and the projection of that experience into 'what if' scenarios is one way. I feel I'm pretty good at that.

Anyway, we won't agree Cab. I've read your viewpoints on other posts, some I agree with, some I don't, in this particular instance I don't.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (9 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> The other video that I want to comment on was the one of the Peugot pulling out of the road on the right -
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pCT-vtLqw_0
> . Were you aware by the position of the car that she may pull out? Did you adjust your speed and position?



Muppet.

Why should Mags have to adjust his road positioning to accommodate some numpty who shouldn't be on the road? 

If you were in a car doing the same thing as Mags here, would you seriously be calm and say 'Oh, that's fine, I was assuming they'd do that so I'll adjust my positioning and speed to allow them' - no, you'd probably swear at them and have to brake and be rightly peeved by it.

They approached the junction, slowed to a stop, waited for Mags to get closer and then pulled out!! Driving like that should be rewarded by points on their license and retraining.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Nigeyy said:


> Taking two scenarios and looking purely at probability:
> 1. you remain in primary/secondary leading up to the light and do not filter in the middle between cars
> What do you gain?
> Consistency in that vehicles around you know where you are, and the fact that vehicles perceive you not as queue jumping.
> What do you lose? Maybe a few seconds? A minute or two?



And you reinforce the erroneous viewpoint that we are not allowed to filter. I would also say that your chances of being overtaken closely are no better or worse; largely, that risk is based on how big an idiot the person behind you is, and thats just the same if you stay where you are in traffic or if you filter to another spot further forward. What do you lose? Time, comfort, momentum and another shred of understanding from those watching that we're allowed to act as Mag. did.



> 2. you filter down the middle, eventually entering a space in the left lane.
> What do you gain?
> Seconds at the traffic light, maybe minutes? Aren't we as cyclists always bemoaning the fact that some people just always are in such a hurry?



Time, momentum (if you judge it just right and don't have to stop), comfort, and you publicise to those watching that we're allowed to act in such a way.



> What do you lose?



Nothing. At all. Your risk isn't measurably greater, is it?



> The fact you are not anticipated to be where you are by some drivers
> The fact you are more susceptible to dooring



These two are linked, really. I have not seen or heard of anyone being doored between lanes of traffic. Nor have I come across anyone who has had an accident due to not being visible while filtering between lanes of cars (filtering past big vehicles with big blind spots is a different story). Have you?



> The fact some people perceive you are queue jumping
> The fact you must effectively change lane.



The former being an erroneous assumption that we only change by challenging, and the latter being an inconsequence.



> I just figure you have better probabilities with no filtering between lanes of vehicles. Now I know that some people will argue that what you did is legal (forgive me but I'm not sure it is or isn't since I'm a little out of touch with the highway code these days) and that it's other people's responsibility to drive appropriately, but I'm firmly in the school of Life, Department of Pragmatics.



Bottom line is that you're no more certain of the response from the vehicle behind you in traffic if you're right at the front or right near the back. This incident is not the fault of Magnatoms filtering, it is entirely, 100% the fault of the motorist _and we should not entertain even for a moment_ the possibility that responsibly filtering and claiming a good road position was in any way linked to it. It wasn't. The car passing too close would have done so had that motorist been stuck behind Mag not filtering. The level of disrespect and disregard for a cyclist shown there is so massive that it is simply not reasonable or required to entertain other possibilities.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> They approached the junction, slowed to a stop, waited for Mags to get closer and then pulled out!! Driving like that should be rewarded by points on their license and retraining.



And public humiliation.


----------



## mr_hippo (9 Apr 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Muppet. *Why do I want to know the name of your favourite TV show?*
> Why should Mags have to adjust his road positioning to accommodate some numpty who shouldn't be on the road? *
> Do you really want me to explain that to you?*If you were in a car doing the same thing as Mags here, would you seriously be calm and say 'Oh, that's fine, I was assuming they'd do that so I'll adjust my positioning and speed to allow them' - no, you'd probably swear at them and have to brake and be rightly peeved by it.
> *Would I adjust my positioning and speed if I were driving a car? Yes as I have done countless times.**They approached the junction, slowed to a stop, waited for Mags to get closer and then pulled out!! *Driving like that should be rewarded by points on their license and retraining.


So you are now the forum's mind reader now, how do you know what the driver was thinking?


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I'll condense it for you dom: Filter but don't put yourself in a position where you're in the f@@kin way of a possible numpty.



Your advice of going to secondary is completely wrong, and disagrees with both Cyclecraft and National Standards Training. It's much safer to be in primary across a junction, and quite poor cycling to be in secondary, and whilst pulling off next to a vehicle.


If I'd been Magnatom, the only thing I might have done differently is give a couple of fear wobbles to dissuade this guy from overtaking. If I read magnatom correctly, his danger radar was alerted beforehand, because of the looking back.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I knew you'd say that.
> 
> I daresay there are aspects I'd agree and disagree with if I did the course and read the book but experience would overule training in certain situations.
> 
> Talking of training, hands up if you don't cross your hands going around a corner in your car (actually I bet you don't)?



You might use your experience to overrule the training, but that's simply showing two things:

Cycling isn't very dangerous, so you can get away with imperfect cycling behaviour.
Your experience lets you deal with your imperfect cycling practice in a way that reduces the risk, but perhaps not as much as if you'd been cycling properly in the first place.

And I do realise that applies to all of us, I'm sure we all do things incorrectly at least once in a while.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I cross myself before I head out on the London roads!
> 
> But seriously, and this has been discussed on Magnatom's threads before, it is every cyclists perogative to ride according to Cyclecraft but until all drivers have read it and understand just how simply their driving can be refreshed to include cycles in their thinking we are stuck in a one way argument.
> I have been cycling in London for years and have had more hairy incidents than I care to mention, almost all of these have been down to drivers who stolidly believe their presence on the road is 'legally' above mine and my personal safety.



To me the beauty of cyclecraft is that it doesn't need to be read by car drivers. Their knowledge or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant to the way cyclecraft teaches riding.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

HLaB said:


> I tend to cycle in the same manner towards lights as magnatom looking for safe gap to stop in be an ASL or a gap in the queue depending on my knowledge/ visibility to the lights. If I'm in the traffic queue I try to accelerate at an equal speed to the car in front and I've never touch wood had a problem when I'm part of the queue. Sometimes at ASL's however, horns sound, some people are in a rush to get to the next traffic queue only seconds away (I don't think I ever been beeped when the road was clearD; so I'm starting to prefer the former.




It's very good advice. It's almost always better to wait a car or two back in the queue, because that takes the rush and frustration out of needing to pass the cyclist for most drivers. Not this unusually bad driver, mind.


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

Hi Guys,

Busy this morning so not much time to write.

Crackle, I didn't have a great sleep last night. However, nothing to do with this. My youngest son would appear to have super diarrhea and had the biggest runniest pooh ever at about 4:30am (more info that you wanted to hear I am sure!). 

Don't worry crackle, I have no problem with what you said. What I hate is people who don't normally take part in these discussions who pop their head in and make disparaging comments, suggesting that I am self righteous etc. I also hate the fact that people think I have more incidents than anyone else. I am sure I don't.

The fact is I have never got so close to an accident that I have had to emergency brake. I have always been able to slow controllably and have never felt in any real danger, except where for instance this car passed way to close. However, even here, because I had space to my left I was able to swerve into the space I had created for myself. As someone else said, had I been further over to the left, he would have passed as close. I just wouldn't have had as much room to escape into.

Have a look at this video 
View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_xR9k4IAeqk


Read the comments, you will see that initially I didn't think I did anything wrong. However if you follow the comments you will see that I later realise that the lady in the car (who did overreact by waving her arms in the air) may have thought I was going to turn across her. I admit that I didn't think of that. I now don't overtake in situations like that, where I can see traffic is approaching in the other direction, or where I can't see gaps in the traffic ahead.

Hardly the actions of someone who is self righteous. I admit I made a mistake and I have learned from it.

Also to those that claim they have never had incidents. Look at my videos where cars pull in front of me at roundabouts and junctions. I was in no danger, because I ride expecting the worst, but I put them online to demonstrate what happens. There is no way that these could be my fault, apart from the fact that I am there. Can anyone tell me, honestly, that no one has ever pulled out on them like that in all their time cycling on the roads. I'd be amazed!


----------



## Crackle (9 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You might use your experience to overrule the training, but that's simply showing two things:
> 
> Cycling isn't very dangerous, so you can get away with imperfect cycling behaviour.
> Your experience lets you deal with your imperfect cycling practice in a way that reduces the risk, but perhaps not as much as if you'd been cycling properly in the first place.
> ...



Imperfect? According to whom. I don't think I'm advocating imperfect technique here, just a different approach to achieving the same thing.

In this instance, for again that's all I'm passing comment on here, I don't think Magnatom handles the filtering well. Primary through the junction, yes but achieved a different way.

In one way you're right. I wouldn't advise a beginner or a slower cyclist to do this but Magnatom is neither and what we are also addressing is the reaction his cycling caused (we assume).

Quoting Cyclecraft and National Training at me as a Diktat is a bit pointless unless it tells me specifically how to deal with this situation. If it tells me to assert my road position, take certain junctions in Primary etc I couldn't disagree, how I achieve that is up to me, my confidence, the traffic, how I feel, whether it's sunny, raining, what that pedestrian is doing, what's in front, what's behind, is that driver yawning, too many variables to just say do this: Experiance counts but if you want to brush it away and just follow rules which are not law or widely known, that's up to you. To me 'that's' imperfect cycling technique.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

You suggested secondary at and through this junction - whilst it's possible, it's definitely not good practice.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> If I'd been Magnatom, the only thing I might have done differently is give a couple of fear wobbles to dissuade this guy from overtaking. If I read magnatom correctly, his danger radar was alerted beforehand, because of the looking back.



Agreed. But I think it is worth stressing that while throwing a wobble in traffic sounds simple enough, its really quite an advanced technique and requires a heck of a lot of confidence.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> Quoting Cyclecraft and National Training at me as a Diktat is a bit pointless unless it tells me specifically how to deal with this situation. If it tells me to assert my road position, take certain junctions in Primary etc I couldn't disagree, how I achieve that is up to me, my confidence, the traffic, how I feel, whether it's sunny, raining, what that pedestrian is doing, what's in front, what's behind, is that driver yawning, too many variables to just say do this: Experiance counts but if you want to brush it away and just follow rules which are not law or widely known, that's up to you. To me 'that's' imperfect cycling technique.



You're not really assimilating the points put to you in making that comment.

Cycling isn't that dangerous. You can ride in a way that is less safe than really you should for years, a lifetime even, and not get splatted. 

The advice given here, advice from cyclecraft for example, reduces your risk. Your perception may be that you're safe not following that advice, but thats the problem with an individuals view when compared to a bigger picture. 

Of course experience comes into it, but whether or not you're experienced, you're safer in the correct road position.


----------



## Trillian (9 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> I forgot to ask: Can anyone spot what is wrong with the Mercedes in front of me?



brake lights still on until after the junction


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Agreed. But I think it is worth stressing that while throwing a wobble in traffic sounds simple enough, its really quite an advanced technique and requires a heck of a lot of confidence.



Are you suggesting I'm not advanced...

I honestly did not expect this chap to pull past me. This is not one of my 'incident hotspots'. Because I pull away here pretty quickly I tend to find I leave the trailing car behind as they expect me to pull off at 5mph! So this one caught me unawares. However, I feel that my road position was correct here as I did have a significant escape route.


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

Trillian said:


> brake lights still on until after the junction



Nah, your way behind (already been answered). In fact the brake lights stay on permanently. Strange fault in what was a fairly expensive and fairly new car.


----------



## biking_fox (9 Apr 2008)

I still don't agree with cutting in the middle of the queue though, either be at the front or stay at the back.

"It's almost always better to wait a car or two back in the queue, because that takes the rush and frustration out of needing to pass the cyclist for most drivers."

This just isn't true. if you are 1 or two cars back then the third driver sees two cars rush off ahead of 'him' while he is held up by a cyclist in primary. The fact that he's only held up a little is irrelvant to the driver, they can see clear road ahead. If the cyclist was in the front of the queue all the drivers would be in the same position.

Primary vs secondary here. From my experiance drivers overtake as wide as they feel they can*. If you are in secondary there is more room for a driver to pass you. Obviously primary was not wide enough to block overtaking - hence it was the wrong place to be. I fully support being in primary where there is not room to overtake. If there is room, then don't be in primary, unless the road surface requires it.


*unless they are being malicious, but this doesn't appear to be the case here.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Are you suggesting I'm not advanced...



Wouldn't dream of it 

Its more that it does take a fair bit of bottle to do such a thing, and whoever you are, whenever you're on the road, its not the easist manoevre, and you can't do it all of the time.



> I honestly did not expect this chap to pull past me. This is not one of my 'incident hotspots'. Because I pull away here pretty quickly I tend to find I leave the trailing car behind as they expect me to pull off at 5mph! So this one caught me unawares. However, I feel that my road position was correct here as I did have a significant escape route.



The thing is, because you chose to filter you couldn't have taken any other road position. You had to claim a place in the traffic, and the subsequent overtake had nothing whatsoever to do with you having done that. Really, if you'd been third vehicle to arrive at the junction, claimed primary while waiting, that gazebo would _still_ have done that had he been the one behind you. The whole filtering thing here is a red herring.

The only thing I would say about your riding here is that sometimes primary position isn't in the middle of the lane, it may be right of centre. In similar traffic I ride right of centre.


----------



## Origamist (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Cycling isn't that dangerous. You can ride in a way that is less safe than really you should for years, a lifetime even, and not get splatted.
> 
> *The advice given here, advice from cyclecraft for example, reduces your risk.* Your perception may be that you're safe not following that advice, but thats the problem with an individuals view when compared to a bigger picture.



Can you point me to any data/papers that will corroborate the statement in bold?


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

biking_fox said:


> "It's almost always better to wait a car or two back in the queue, because that takes the rush and frustration out of needing to pass the cyclist for most drivers."
> 
> This just isn't true.




That's simply wrong. Being at the front brings a noticeable increase in aggressive overtaking, because the driver behind sees an enticing empty road ahead of you, and feels pressure from the drivers behind to overtake you. Being one or two vehicles back makes you part of the queue, the driver behind has no empty road ahead, and doesn't feel the need to overtake nearly as much. Of course I'm assuming traffic is moving as in magnatom's video, I'd have a completely different approach with gridlock.

If you spend any amount of time trying both approaches, the difference is very obvious.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Agreed. But I think it is worth stressing that while throwing a wobble in traffic sounds simple enough, its really quite an advanced technique and requires a heck of a lot of confidence.



Yes, absolutely right, I should have added that.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Origamist said:


> Can you point me to any data/papers that will corroborate the statement in bold?



Start with John Forresters analysis of the stats on how many cyclists are caught out by motorists turning through them as opposed to being hit from behind/during overtaking, go back to his work "Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation". I belive you can even get a PDF of one of the old editions for free. Chapter 2 of that edition, if memory serves, is a good starting point.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

biking_fox said:


> Primary vs secondary here. From my experiance drivers overtake as wide as they feel they can*.



Then your experience does not correlate well with the observed behaviour of all too many motorists who overtake as closely as they can, ideally not even swerving to move around cyclists.



> If you are in secondary there is more room for a driver to pass you. Obviously primary was not wide enough to block overtaking - hence it was the wrong place to be. I fully support being in primary where there is not room to overtake. If there is room, then don't be in primary, unless the road surface requires it.
> 
> 
> *unless they are being malicious, but this doesn't appear to be the case here.



If there isn't room to safely overtake, then there _isn't room to safely overtake_. The correct position to be in is a good primary. Primary isn't the wrong place to just because an overtake of you in secondary is a little less unsafe, because if you start out in primary (or worse) all you'll achieve is less space to escape to when the muppet behind you (or in this case Magnatom) decides to pass within a whisker of your elbow.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Nah, your way behind (already been answered). In fact the brake lights stay on permanently. Strange fault in what was a fairly expensive and fairly new car.



Stolen?


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Stolen?



No. The woman who was driving it just wasn't the sort, although I suppose it takes all sorts.....


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> No. The woman who was driving it just wasn't the sort, although I suppose it takes all sorts.....



Bertie Basset would probably be a more responsble motorist.

Oh, you dind't _literally_ mean allsorts, did you...


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Bertie Basset would probably be a more responsble motorist.
> 
> Oh, you dind't _literally_ mean allsorts, did you...



 You realise that we are talking about the car in front with the faulty brake lights?


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> You realise that we are talking about the car in front with the faulty brake lights?



Yes, I know... And if I remember correctly you mentioned it to her but she didn't give two figs about it?


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Yes, I know... And if I remember correctly you mentioned it to her but she didn't give two figs about it?



Ah yes. Actually I was probably a bit harsh about her. I would suggest she was a little bit confused rather than disinterested. Probably worse!


----------



## Origamist (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Start with John Forresters analysis of the stats on how many cyclists are caught out by motorists turning through them as opposed to being hit from behind/during overtaking, go back to his work "Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation". I belive you can even get a PDF of one of the old editions for free. Chapter 2 of that edition, if memory serves, is a good starting point.



Cab, are you serious! John Forester's "random sampling" technique is ridiculous. Pick a slice of the population that you know will deliver the desired results, no matter how unrepresentative, then _draw _the predetermined conclusion from the results. 

You may not be aware that JF's lack of metrics, no real interest in exposure and sophmoric analyses are widely discredited now. He himself as admitted that his data is flawed!

Keep trying though!


----------



## Nigeyy (9 Apr 2008)

Cab,

I really don't think you're getting the point; I'm not saying filtering is legal or illegal, merely that you choose a course of action, and you have to work out for yourself what's best. I'm not reinforcing anything!

I still stand by my assertion that filtering down the middle of traffic just isn't as safe as the alternative of maintaining primary/secondary. Legal of not legal -doesn't make a difference. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Filter on! 

But to address some of your points:
1. if you do choose to filter forward, it means the probability of you passing by some unobservant careless driver is surely increased, yes? I'll assert it's not the same if you stay where you are.

2. Even you state "if you judge it just right and don't have to stop", surely again, that's an indication of a further judgement you must make -exposing yourself to error here?

3. No, I haven't heard of anyone being doored while filtering. But then again, I don't know anybody who does that action. I don't know of anyone personally being knocked down by a train either, but again that's because I don't know people who walk on tracks. I wouldn't think it's a good idea to walk on train tracks though, eh? I can say I have seen drivers pull out/change lanes unexpectedly with a fair degree of certainty they didn't look when changing lanes at traffic queues. I'll say it again: careless car drivers won't expect you to be there. I don't know about you, but that's really good enough reason for me!

4. and read my post -c a r e f u l l y. At no point am I asserting Magnatom's actions resulted in the close overtake. I was simply commenting on his filtering at the light. In fact the very first thing I did was clearly state the overtaking motorist was at fault.

And again I'll say it -you pays your money, you takes your choice.




Cab said:


> And you reinforce the erroneous viewpoint that we are not allowed to filter. I would also say that your chances of being overtaken closely are no better or worse; largely, that risk is based on how big an idiot the person behind you is, and thats just the same if you stay where you are in traffic or if you filter to another spot further forward. What do you lose? Time, comfort, momentum and another shred of understanding from those watching that we're allowed to act as Mag. did.
> 
> Time, momentum (if you judge it just right and don't have to stop), comfort, and you publicise to those watching that we're allowed to act in such a way.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Origamist said:


> Keep trying though!



I said start there. Feel free not to.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Nigeyy said:


> Cab,
> 
> I really don't think you're getting the point; I'm not saying filtering is legal or illegal, merely that you choose a course of action, and you have to work out for yourself what's best. I'm not reinforcing anything!



Yes, you are. If you act in a way which othere erroeneously believe is required of you, you're reinforcing that erroneous view. Doesn't mean that you should never do it, but its impossible to dispute that fact.



> I still stand by my assertion that filtering down the middle of traffic just isn't as safe as the alternative of maintaining primary/secondary. Legal of not legal -doesn't make a difference. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Filter on!



Legal/not legal does make a difference. If you're legally allowed to do it and others are required to look out for people doing it, then of course it makes a difference. 



> But to address some of your points:
> 1. if you do choose to filter forward, it means the probability of you passing by some unobservant careless driver is surely increased, yes? I'll assert it's not the same if you stay where you are.



Yes. The probability of passing by an unobservant driver is increased; yet the probability of an unobservant driver opening a door that leads straight in to traffic is _tiny_, getting doored is usually the result of filtering kerb side or going too close around the outside of a parked vehicle. I maintain that I have never seen nor hear of any cyclist getting doored between lanes of traffic. So, simply, you're multiplying up a risk that is negligible, the risk is still therefore negligible,



> 2. Even you state "if you judge it just right and don't have to stop", surely again, that's an indication of a further judgement you must make -exposing yourself to error here?



Indeed. You can make mistakes and get things all wrong. True of all cycling. But now you're getting to the point where you just don't ride in traffic because of your own fallibility.



> 3. No, I haven't heard of anyone being doored while filtering. But then again, I don't know anybody who does that action. I don't know of anyone personally being knocked down by a train either, but again that's because I don't know people who walk on tracks. I wouldn't think it's a good idea to walk on train tracks though, eh?



There are hundreds, even thousands of footpaths crossing railway lines, many of them with no signals at all, no level crossing, yet people regularly fail to be run over by trains. In fact those places where it is safe and legal for people to cross or move along railway lines are spectacularly safe. Not sure what point you're making there to be honest. You're comparing a safe action with filtering between lanes of static traffic...



> I can say I have seen drivers pull out/change lanes unexpectedly with a fair degree of certainty they didn't look when changing lanes at traffic queues. I'll say it again: careless car drivers won't expect you to be there. I don't know about you, but that's really good enough reason for me!



That traffic in the example was bumper to bumper, no one could move out until it started to shift. Mag wasn't going to be hit by someone changing lanes there because no one could possibly change lanes without sideswiping another vehicle.



> 4. and read my post -c a r e f u l l y. At no point am I asserting Magnatom's actions resulted in the close overtake. I was simply commenting on his filtering at the light. In fact the very first thing I did was clearly state the overtaking motorist was at fault.
> 
> And again I'll say it -you pays your money, you takes your choice.



I didn't accuse you of blaming Mag, I asserted more strongly than you had that not only was this not Mags fault, but the filtering issue is utterly, totally irrelevent to the matter in hand because there is no vague link between the two.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (9 Apr 2008)

> Muppet. *
> 
> >> Why do I want to know the name of your favourite TV show?*


 Ha ha. No, really. My sides are splitting.

Look, intestines.. 




> Why should Mags have to adjust his road positioning to accommodate some numpty who shouldn't be on the road? *
> Do you really want me to explain that to you?*


Err, yes please. It's the other driver's responsibility to be aware of traffic on the road they are turning on to. Obviously Mags *needed* to adjust based on the driver's acute lack of braincells, but the point is he *shouldn't* have to in the first place if the driver could actually drive properly.



> If you were in a car doing the same thing as Mags here, would you seriously be calm and say 'Oh, that's fine, I was assuming they'd do that so I'll adjust my positioning and speed to allow them' - no, you'd probably swear at them and have to brake and be rightly peeved by it.
> *Would I adjust my positioning and speed if I were driving a car? Yes as I have done countless times.*


And you were totally relaxed about this were you. The fact that you, driving sensibly and correctly, had to adjust for someone else's lack of care/attention? Yeah. Pull the other one, it's got bells attached.*




They approached the junction, slowed to a stop, waited for Mags to get closer and then pulled out!!

Click to expand...

*


> Driving like that should be rewarded by points on their license and retraining.
> *So you are now the forum's mind reader now, how do you know what the driver was thinking?*


Errr, I would have thought it was patently obvious they weren't thinking. Never said anything about what they *were* thinking. Can you read?


----------



## Origamist (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> I said start there. Feel free not to.



I guess that means you cannot substantiate your earlier claim? 

If you're truly interested in so-called "best practices" and cycling safety, I would recommend trying to get hold Stanley Batt's critique of Forester's often dodgy research.


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

I've just called the police and they require that I pop into a station and report it there (and to bring the video along). I won't manage until Friday.

It will be interesting to see what their response is.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Origamist said:


> I guess that means you cannot substantiate your earlier claim?



No, it means that your starting position thus stated:



> If you're truly interested in so-called "best practices" and cycling safety, I would recommend trying to get hold Stanley Batt's critique of Forester's often dodgy research.



...implies complet immutability in your stance, and it isn't worth my time providing any kind of data or reference for you.


----------



## goo_mason (9 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> I've just called the police and they require that I pop into a station and report it there (and to bring the video along). I won't manage until Friday.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what their response is.



Especially as you took their advice, didn't chase after the driver to give him some advice, and reported it to them as they said in front of the Scottish nation on teatime news telly. Surely they wouldn't take no action after such a public statement was made ? 

I hope they have a wee word with the driver at least and make him aware of the seriousness of his actions.


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

goo_mason said:


> Especially as you took their advice, didn't chase after the driver to give him some advice, and reported it to them as they said in front of the Scottish nation on teatime news telly. Surely they wouldn't take no action after such a public statement was made ?
> 
> I hope they have a wee word with the driver at least and make him aware of the seriousness of his actions.



To be fair goo, I just wasn't capable of keeping up with him.....


----------



## Origamist (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> ...implies complet immutability in your stance, and it isn't worth my time providing any kind of data or reference for you.



Quite the opposite. My position vis a vis Forester has evolved over the years. So please, humour me, and produce evidence to support your statement.

It is a shame that you do not want to question your own beliefs or even hold them up to cursory scrutiny. 

PS "complet (sic) immutability" is a strong candidate for tautology of the day!


----------



## Aperitif (9 Apr 2008)

Origamist, do you ride a 'folder' by any chance? 

Keep up your good work Magnatom. May your shaves be not so close.


----------



## Nigeyy (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Yes, you are. If you act in a way which othere erroeneously believe is required of you, you're reinforcing that erroneous view. Doesn't mean that you should never do it, but its impossible to dispute that fact.



What?



Cab said:


> Legal/not legal does make a difference. If you're legally allowed to do it and others are required to look out for people doing it, then of course it makes a difference.



Only in terms of legalities -i.e. taking someone to court. Of course, that's if you're alive, have full use of your limbs, etc. But if you want to be dead right in the legal sense all the time, be my guest. Again, you pays your money, you takes your choice. I'd still avoid legal but not worth the risk activities myself.



Cab said:


> Yes. The probability of passing by an unobservant driver is increased; yet the probability of an unobservant driver opening a door that leads straight in to traffic is _tiny_, getting doored is usually the result of filtering kerb side or going too close around the outside of a parked vehicle. I maintain that I have never seen nor hear of any cyclist getting doored between lanes of traffic. So, simply, you're multiplying up a risk that is negligible, the risk is still therefore negligible,



Not according to my observations. Your eyesight may differ. But regardless, as I see it, you're the one taking the risk and it's your choice and I don't have a problem with that (mind you, if you act in a way which others erroneously believe is required of you, you're reinforcing that erroneous view).



Cab said:


> Indeed. You can make mistakes and get things all wrong. True of all cycling. But now you're getting to the point where you just don't ride in traffic because of your own fallibility.



That's true, but your extrapolation is incorrect for me. As an individual you must evaluate situations and I didn't mention anything about where you just don't ride in traffic. Your words, not mine.



Cab said:


> There are hundreds, even thousands of footpaths crossing railway lines, many of them with no signals at all, no level crossing, yet people regularly fail to be run over by trains. In fact those places where it is safe and legal for people to cross or move along railway lines are spectacularly safe. Not sure what point you're making there to be honest. You're comparing a safe action with filtering between lanes of static traffic...



Again, you missed the point. If you can't see the point, then I can't help you!



Cab said:


> That traffic in the example was bumper to bumper, no one could move out until it started to shift. Mag wasn't going to be hit by someone changing lanes there because no one could possibly change lanes without sideswiping another vehicle.



I should have been clearer; I've seen people nudge out just prior to changing lanes. Additionally once traffic starts moving, it's certainly not unknown for someone to change lane to avoid a car turning ahead.



Cab said:


> I didn't accuse you of blaming Mag, I asserted more strongly than you had that not only was this not Mags fault, but the filtering issue is utterly, totally irrelevent to the matter in hand because there is no vague link between the two.



Then why mention it? I was clear (if you'd read my post carefully) that it wasn't a consideration in the incident Magnatom posted.

Cab, I think you should start taking a deep breath before you reply to people and read their posts thoroughly!


----------



## mr_hippo (9 Apr 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke;238749
[/COLOR said:


> * (1) *Err, yes please. It's the other driver's responsibility to be aware of traffic on the road they are turning on to. Obviously Mags *needed* to adjust based on the driver's acute lack of braincells, but the point is he *shouldn't* have to in the first place if the driver could actually drive properly.
> 
> * (2) * And you were totally relaxed about this were you. The fact that you, driving sensibly and correctly, had to adjust for someone else's lack of care/attention? Yeah. Pull the other one, it's got bells attached.*
> 
> (3) Errr, I would have thought it was patently obvious they weren't thinking. Never said anything about what they *were* thinking. Can you read?*


*

 (1)  Are you trying to tell me that the person on the main road has no responsibility at all to other road users?
 (2)  Don't you or do you just plough into them?
 (3)  Yes, I do read but it is patently obvious that you do not! You said "They approached the junction, slowed to a stop, waited for Mags to get closer and then pulled out!!" So if they waited... and then pulled out; it was conscious decision so they were thinking.*


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Origamist said:


> Quite the opposite. My position vis a vis Forester has evolved over the years. So please, humour me, and produce evidence to support your statement.



Nope, sorry. I neither know you nor can be bothered humouring you; your stance (here, the first time I've encountered you) seems entirely unconstructive. So, no.


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

We are beginning to get into such detail now that I am sure someone will suggest that the particular breakfast I had before I set off would have a bearing on the incident. 
Perhaps different breakfast constituents would sit differently in my stomach affecting my balance in different ways. If only I had had toast instead of cornflakes then I wouldn't have wobbled slightly just as I set off from the lights, suggesting to the following driver that I was going to pull over to the left of the lane. Due to said wobble he felt justified to proceed with the overtake as he was sure that my cornflake wobble would take me far enough over to allow for a safe overtake.

Damn. From now on I will definitely be having toast for breakfast. See I am willing to learn from my mistakes! 


P.S. I never imagined I would ever write a sentence with the words cornflake wobble in it!


----------



## Crackle (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> You're not really assimilating the points put to you in making that comment.





BentMikey said:


> You suggested secondary at and through this junction - whilst it's possible, it's definitely not good practice.



I dunno, nip out for a couple of hours bike ride, no incidents  and there's another six pages to assimiliate.

I am assimilating what's put to me. I'm rejecting it and questioning why you think what Magnatom did is correct. You've had two alternatives put forward both of which are pretty viable in my book but no, only the perscribed Cyclecraft interpretation as supplied by you is correct. You've got lots of people questioning it but again oh no, none of us have seen the light have we: I'm out!

So Magnatom has anything that's been said changed the way you'd do that next time or are you currently sticking to your guns?


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Nigeyy said:


> What?



For example, most cyclists ride in very timid positions. They're wrong to do so, but its so common as to be almost universal in many cities; ride assertively there and you'll have people winding their windows down to berate you for being in the wrong place. The more of us ride a certain way, the more we reinforce the impression that this is how we _must_ ride. 

I'm all for waiting in traffic when appropriate, but I won't encourage others to do so where filtering is appropriate because I don't choose to reinforde the erroneous idea that many motorists have that cyclists should not be doing so. 



> Only in terms of legalities -i.e. taking someone to court. Of course, that's if you're alive, have full use of your limbs, etc. But if you want to be dead right in the legal sense all the time, be my guest. Again, you pays your money, you takes your choice. I'd still avoid legal but not worth the risk activities myself.



Yet you have not justified elevated risk; and as such, because it _is_ legal and it _is not_ demonstrably more dangerous, I'd encourage experienced cyclists to ride in this way. The more of us do it, the more we'll be noticed, the more people will look in their mirrors. It isn't just about insisting on it being legal so I'll do it, its the simple reality that if we do not excercise such legal rights then they become less readily available to us.



> Not according to my observations. Your eyesight may differ. But regardless, as I see it, you're the one taking the risk and it's your choice and I don't have a problem with that (mind you, if you act in a way which others erroneously believe is required of you, you're reinforcing that erroneous view).



Not according to your observations? But you haven't seen or heard of anyone being doored while filtering either. What observations have you made that show such filtering to be elevating risk?



> That's true, but your extrapolation is incorrect for me. As an individual you must evaluate situations and I didn't mention anything about where you just don't ride in traffic. Your words, not mine.



Yet as an individual you've got no evidence that such filtering increases risk. You're not aware of any accidents, you've provided no clear reasoning why its risky. Yet you're insisting that it _is_. 

I put it to you that this is one of those occasions where personal perception of risk is a dubious asset; you're assuming that being between two rows of cars is dangerous because they may move (yet they can't), or they may open their doors (which would be foolhardy and completely useless). Take a step back and think, and it ain't likely to be risky. 



> Again, you missed the point. If you can't see the point, then I can't help you!



No, you missed the point. I'll make it clearer for you.

You've chosen to defend that this kind of filtering is dangerous by referring to another situation (traversing railway tracks) which you also believe is dangerous. Take personal perception of risk out of the equation and you discover that crossing railway lines, unless you're playing chicken with a train, is not especially dangerous. 

So you see, I haven't missed the point, I've merely turned your example around to show to you that your point is probably wrong.



> I should have been clearer; I've seen people nudge out just prior to changing lanes. Additionally once traffic starts moving, it's certainly not unknown for someone to change lane to avoid a car turning ahead.



Thats part of the skill of filtering; picking well ahead of you the gaps you can move in to when the lights change, watching traffic movements well ahead such that you're not caught out. I actually find keeping track of these parameters (which are also important when sat in traffic) easier when I'm moving than when I'm not. 



> Then why mention it? I was clear (if you'd read my post carefully) that it wasn't a consideration in the incident Magnatom posted.



Because the implication of discussing his filtering when the point of the thread was about the close overtake seemed sufficiently serious that it needed addressing. 



> Cab, I think you should start taking a deep breath before you reply to people and read their posts thoroughly!



And I think that shows that you're not really considering the full contents of my replies before posting.


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> So Magnatom has anything that's been said changed the way you'd do that next time or are you currently sticking to your guns?




To be quite honest, I probably didn't need to filter there. I was only going to be a few cars back. I will in future try and hold back. It was my, probably, unjustified dislike for being the last in that queue that encouraged me to filter (revving cars at lights behind). I didn't filter today, however there were only three cars in front of me anyway.

However, I do not think my filtering (actually you could class it as overtaking as I had a whole lane free to myself) was safe, and as I said before I have only ever had two incidents when filtering in like that, over the time I have cycled to work.

In my experience I do get less agression and flak when I filter into a space a couple of cars back. Earlier Dom said, that in this situation you have to depend on the kindness of the driver behind. That I think is the advantage. the driver feels that they are being kind to let you in (I do often give a wave as I pull into the lane if it is safe to do so). The fact that they feel they have let you in, reduces the likelihood that they will then push past you, in my experience. 

Obviously not on this occasion.

So in summary, yes I probably will think twice about filtering where the gain is small, but I will still filter.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I am assimilating what's put to me.



Clearly, you are not, otherwise you would not have just blandly restated your previous argument with no considered response to my last comments directed in your direction.


----------



## gambatte (9 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> We are beginning to get into such detail now that I am sure someone will suggest that the particular breakfast I had before I set off would have a bearing on the incident.



Mags - I'd always recommend - full english !


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

gambatte said:


> Mags - I'd always recommend - full english !



Well my wife is English.....


----------



## Origamist (9 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> Nope, sorry. I neither know you nor can be bothered humouring you; your stance (here, the first time I've encountered you) seems entirely unconstructive. So, no.



What is unconstructive about questioning what has led you to form an opinion? What is unconstructive about highlighting the fact that people have serious doubts about the Forester text you cite as evidence to support your tendentious claim? If you do not want to discuss in more detail what you write on this forum, perhaps you should be a bit more parsimonious with your choice words and views.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

Origamist said:


> What is unconstructive...
> 
> 
> > Spending time on a complete stranger who has asked me to do something from a starting stance whicm implies that such would be a waste of time.


----------



## magnatom (9 Apr 2008)

Just had my latest threat of violence on this video. Just admitted he would assault me.


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Apr 2008)

The main factor I can see, after all is said and done, is that if the overtaking car had simply held back it would have been able to pull over to the next junction without any hint of harm to Magnatom.

Again a driver making a massively dangerous move only to gain seconds on their journey.

I've watched the clip over again and I totally agree with Mag that a primary position is needed for the pinch point at the railings, it appears to be a fast piece of road and if you didn't hold that primary you might as well get off and walk. The Vauxhall one way system in South London is very much the same beast IMO.

Obviously, we are all different cyclists from very different cities, Cab rides where the bike is in the majority but drivers are angier, Magnatom rides in Glasgow where bikes are in the minority and not best respected by some motorists and I ride in London which is a bit of a mix of the two but where for the most part bikes are rising in number in the face of animosity from drivers.

And this is where the filtering issue falls flat. The junction that Magnatom filters down is wider than most that I encounter but from my own experience I would be retisent to filter this way.

For the record, a car filtering down the outer lane only to then barge its nose into a gap in the left hand lane, jumping the queue, is a fairly regular sight in London and is considered bad form from any vehicle.


----------



## Cab (9 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> Just had my latest threat of violence on this video. Just admitted he would assault me.



Another one to take to the police then!


----------



## Nigeyy (9 Apr 2008)

Well in that case according to Cab you're admitting that you will reinforce erroneous behaviour (sorry couldn't resist!). Back on point Magnatom, I want to add I really enjoy -well enjoy in terms of learning from them and based on what people post -your cycling videos. Keep up the good work -I think you're pretty brave to open up your cycling to critique.



magnatom said:


> To be quite honest, I probably didn't need to filter there. I was only going to be a few cars back. I will in future try and hold back. It was my, probably, unjustified dislike for being the last in that queue that encouraged me to filter (revving cars at lights behind). I didn't filter today, however there were only three cars in front of me anyway.


----------



## HJ (9 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> The other video that I want to comment on was the one of the Peugot pulling out of the road on the right -
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pCT-vtLqw_0
> . Were you aware by the position of the car that she may pull out? Did you adjust your speed and position? If not, why not? Please do not say that you had 'right of way', St Peter at the Pearly Gates is getting sick of that excuse!
> Does the camera lie? Yes, it does! When I have time, I will compile a video of my apparent near-misses.




The Peugot was turning minor to major, the driver had to give way by law not just moral one, it was a classic example of bad driving. Why should cyclist have to apologise for being on the road?


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

I think hippo boy is trying to suggest that magnatom wasn't riding defensively in the Peugeot incident. Looks fine to me, he made enough of a correction for her bad driving that there wasn't an issue.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (9 Apr 2008)

spindrift said:


> There's two reasons for that kind of behaviour, inattention to the point of stupor or it was a deliberate act of aggression to "teach someone a lesson".
> 
> Both inexcusable.
> 
> And filtering isn't like picking fights in pubs nor is it illegal, don't be absurd.



Er, maybe my little stab at humour on this rather serious thread fell flat on its face - I meant to give a little-devil-on-the-shoulder type prod that when Magnatom reports this he might consider letting slip that at the time he did question the sobiety of the oxygen-thief in question.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (9 Apr 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> The main factor I can see, after all is said and done, is that if the overtaking car had simply held back it would have been able to pull over to the next junction without any hint of harm to Magnatom.
> 
> Again a driver making a massively dangerous move only to gain seconds on their journey.
> 
> ...



I ride in London pretty often, and have to say, I filter the same way as Magnatom did there. It is essentially the same as riding a motorbike, except I don't go to the front and zoom away, I stop a couple of cars back just like Magnatom did, and pull away with the rest of the cars.

I don't think this is antagonistic, and have never had a problem doing it, sometimes we are just unlucky. This behaviour, that a few people here are calling antagonistic has never caused me any problems, but simply cycling has seen 2 seperate instances of passengers leaning out of the car to hit me.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Apr 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> For the record, a car filtering down the outer lane only to then barge its nose into a gap in the left hand lane, jumping the queue, is a fairly regular sight in London and is considered bad form from any vehicle.




That's certainly true for a car, but incorrect for any two wheeler. I take it you never filter at all, assuming you really follow your own viewpoint based on that paragraph.


----------



## nethalus (9 Apr 2008)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> I ride in London pretty often, and have to say, I filter the same way as Magnatom did there. It is essentially the same as riding a motorbike, except I don't go to the front and zoom away, I stop a couple of cars back just like Magnatom did, and pull away with the rest of the cars.
> 
> I don't think this is antagonistic, and have never had a problem doing it, sometimes we are just unlucky. This behaviour, that a few people here are calling antagonistic has never caused me any problems, but simply cycling has seen 2 seperate instances of passengers leaning out of the car to hit me.



I remember when me and my sister were in our teens. We were riding on our bikes along Capel Road in Forest Gate in London. A car came quite close to us and the passenger leaned out of the car window and tried to grab my sister's backside. Fortunately she manged to swerve away from him. Bloody pervert he was.


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's certainly true for a car, but incorrect for any two(or three)wheeler. I take it you never filter at all, assuming you really follow your own viewpoint based on that paragraph.



I can honestly say, hand on my heart that I don't filter into traffic viz OT, I prefer to hold a primary position in a queue, the cars around having more chance of knowing I'm there, time to make eye contact, etc.

The only times I might filter would be down the outside of a static line of traffic if I need to turn right or on the near side if the distance is short and my way is clear to enter an ASL, otherwise I just don't do it.

I would hope that no one can say my riding is incorrect as I do this for my own piece of mind and in the end it should inconvenience no one but myself and also encourage drivers to respect my taking my place on the road without being 'a bit cheeky'.


----------



## atbman (10 Apr 2008)

Cab said:


> He isn't a car. Cars cannot filter through traffic like that, it is not safe to do so, it is therefore not allowed.
> 
> Bikes can. Its allowed, it is not rude, it is not unreasonable, and it adds nothign to the journey time of other road users, nor does it increase risk for them.
> 
> You would find it discourteous? Change your viewpoint then, because it is not supported by law, common sense or utility.



Cab, I was not referring to Magnatom filtering up between the two lines of traffic, but to his cutting in front of the vehicle that later overtook him. I was using the example of being in a car and leaving a car's length in front (for safety) and then having another car come along and cut in front.

In similar circumstances, if I wished to cut in, I'd have made eye contact, simply as a matter of courtesy.

_Assumption:_

the driver waits at the lights, leaving a smallish gap in front of him
filtering (nothing wrong with that) cyclist drops into that gap
then, when the lights change, sets off more slowly than the driver would have done, tho' he only loses a few seconds
driver gets annoyed and overtakes far too closely in order to express that annoyance or, alternatively, is simply a plonker with no consideration
One common belief I've seen expressed is that is a dog-eat-dog world and cyclists have to ride accordingly. If that were the case, then traffic wouldn't work at all, but, in reality, the vast majority of road users co-operate with each other. Admittedly, not on every occasion, but sufficiently to enable traffic to flow reasonably smoothly.

While Magnatom has every right to regard that piece of overtaking as appallingly and dangerously close, I am of the opinion that his own riding contributed to the circumstances of that overtaking (assuming that I'm correct in assuming that the driver was expressing his/her irritation - if I'm not, then the overtaking was simply the driver being a plonker, as I've said), even tho' the assumed reaction was wrong.

I've done a few pretty stupid things in my time, because of impulse or lack of concentration, and I've had to thank the alertness and care taken by a driver with various reactions ranging from eyes-to-heaven to fluent anglo-saxon.

I had a fairly similar road set-up on my pre-retirement commute and I usually stayed in the lane-splitting position, unless I could move in without creating the kind of "delay" which the more immature/ill-tempered driver would respond unfavourably to. I behaved like that, not because I believe that I shouldn't ever annoy a driver, but because it made the flow of my ride smoother and safer.

On a very few occasions, I did stick my ground when a driver was being impatient/ignorant/stupid, because I have always believed that we should cycle assertively, but within a broad framework of give-and-take, since courtesy costs nothing.


----------



## gambatte (10 Apr 2008)

So, Mags, did you report it?


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2008)

atbman said:


> I was using the example of being in a car and leaving a car's length in front (for safety) and then having another car come along and cut in front.



I've heard this a few times now and want to point out that it's an incorrect assumption. Safety space for what? The car isn't moving, it doesn't need any space in front for safety.



atbman said:


> I am of the opinion that his own riding contributed to the circumstances of that overtaking



Wrong - filtering is both legal and accepted practice, as in what Magnatom did there. Even if it wasn't, it'd still be no justification whatsoever for that overtake.


----------



## magnatom (10 Apr 2008)

gambatte said:


> So, Mags, did you report it?



I phoned up, but I need to pop in to the station. I will be popping in tomorrow as I am off then. I'll keep you informed.


----------



## Cab (10 Apr 2008)

atbman said:


> Cab, I was not referring to Magnatom filtering up between the two lines of traffic, but to his cutting in front of the vehicle that later overtook him. I was using the example of being in a car and leaving a car's length in front (for safety) and then having another car come along and cut in front.



The cars were not moving. Until they moved there could be a cars length, two cars lengths, half a cars length, it doesn't matter. Traffic not moving is not dangerous. There is no safety issue.



> In similar circumstances, if I wished to cut in, I'd have made eye contact, simply as a matter of courtesy.



It is not clear to me that there was no communication between Mag and the motorist. Nor is it entirely clear to me that this courtesy should be considered anything more than that; a courtesy. Good if you manage it, but neither sufficient to make a rude action polite nor sufficient if lacking to make a permitted action rude.



> _Assumption:_
> 
> the driver waits at the lights, leaving a smallish gap in front of him
> filtering (nothing wrong with that) cyclist drops into that gap
> ...



If either is the case then he shouldn't be in charge of a car. Bottom line; someone does something legal, that is accepted practice, and you react badly to it, then they need to get the hell off our roads. You cannot blame the person who has committed no offense for that, you can't even say that their actions contrinuted to that. Its entirely, 100%, unquestionably the fault of the motorist here, and we do cyclists a disservice by entertaining any other possibility.



> One common belief I've seen expressed is that is a dog-eat-dog world and cyclists have to ride accordingly. If that were the case, then traffic wouldn't work at all, but, in reality, the vast majority of road users co-operate with each other. Admittedly, not on every occasion, but sufficiently to enable traffic to flow reasonably smoothly.
> 
> While Magnatom has every right to regard that piece of overtaking as appallingly and dangerously close, I am of the opinion that his own riding contributed to the circumstances of that overtaking (assuming that I'm correct in assuming that the driver was expressing his/her irritation - if I'm not, then the overtaking was simply the driver being a plonker, as I've said), even tho' the assumed reaction was wrong.



I don't know how to make this any more simple...

Filtering like that is legal, its accepted practice, it is safe. For someone to react negatively informs us that they either do not understand the rules of the road or do not care for them, and they do they value others safety. If you do nothing wrong they you're not contributing to someone else being a complete git.

This is not one of those incidents with grey areas or mistakes on both sides. Theres a bad guy, and theres Magnatom. Mag has made mistakes on the road in the past (and been a good enough sport to put the footage online), but this is not one of them.


----------



## Cab (10 Apr 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Wrong - filtering is both legal and accepted practice, as in what Magnatom did there. Even if it wasn't, it'd still be no justification whatsoever for that overtake.



And this often used style of defense for bad behaviour is simply tiresome. If a schoolchild were to say 'but I was in a bad mood' as defense for having beaten another kid, you'd still blame him entirely. Yet on our roads 'but he'd just...' is used regularly to excuse dangerous driving. It ain't acceptable, nor should we even enter into discussion on whether such might mitigate that kind of behaviour.


----------



## magnatom (10 Apr 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> The Peugot was turning minor to major, the driver had to give way by law not just moral one, it was a classic example of bad driving. Why should cyclist have to apologise for being on the road?



I certainly did have right of way. However, I also kept an eye on her and was able to slow down with plenty of time to spare. No need to emergency brake (my brakes are a little noisy in the dry anyway!). I think I had the situation covered despite what mr_hippo says. Does that seem reasonable Mr_hippo?


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (10 Apr 2008)

_*So DG show me where it says it is illegal.*_

The Highway code says you can only undertake when a vehicle isturning right or, if in a slow moving queue of traffic, the left hand lane of traffic moves off quicker than the right hand lane.


----------



## magnatom (10 Apr 2008)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> _*So DG show me where it says it is illegal.*_
> 
> The Highway code says you can only undertake when a vehicle isturning right or, if in a slow moving queue of traffic, the left hand lane of traffic moves off quicker than the right hand lane.



The magic word is undertake. I did not undertake, I filtered. The traffic was completely stationary. This motorbike article references a court case with regards to filtering which the proof I think you required to show that filtering is legal.

http://www.motorbikestoday.com/news/Articles/filtering_law.htm

Concede DG?


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2008)

Disgruntled Goat, there's a specific reference to motorcycles and filtering in rule 88 of the highway code.


----------



## mr_hippo (10 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> I certainly did have right of way. However, I also kept an eye on her and was able to slow down with plenty of time to spare. *No need to emergency brake* (my brakes are a little noisy in the dry anyway!). I think I had the situation covered despite what mr_hippo says. Does that seem reasonable Mr_hippo?


Yet, in the Peugot video the title states "In this clip you can hear my brakes, as I am forced to apply them". Why were you forced to apply them if it was not an emergency?


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2008)

I'm confused, I really don't understand what point you're trying to make, mr_hippo.

Magnatom's video is just a video of a driver making a mistake, and him correcting for it. What more are you trying to read into it?


----------



## magnatom (10 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Yet, in the Peugot video the title states "In this clip you can hear my brakes, as I am forced to apply them". Why were you forced to apply them if it was not an emergency?



Yes, I am forced to use them because she pulls into the space I would have occupied had I not applied my brakes. I anticipated it and reacted to it, and I was able to with plenty of space to spare, NOT because this lady's maneuver wasn't dangerous, but because I reacted correctly and timely. 

Does that make sense?


If you pull out and force another driver to apply their brakes then you should not have pulled out IMO!


----------



## Cab (10 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> If you pull out and force another driver to apply their brakes then you should not have pulled out IMO!



And that isn't in any way a controversial view. I don't see what Hippo is getting at here.


----------



## mr_hippo (10 Apr 2008)

If someone is forced to break then it is an emergency.


----------



## Cab (10 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> If someone is forced to break then it is an emergency.



Your definition of 'emergency' is rather more lax than mine then. 

I've had to pull emergency stops on the road, but they're rare because usually I've anticipated whats happening well in advance, and by the time whatever danger there is has materialised I've already taken sufficient action to turn the potential 'emergency' into an inconvenience or simply a non-event.

Mags stop there was not an emergency stop. Was more abrupt than is ideal, but it _would_ have been an emergency stop had he not spotted the danger and already taken some action.

Its a mistake to pull out in front of another vehicle that has priority. No question there. That the person in control of the other vehicle has kept tight enough control and a good look out to avoid the risk posed does not make pulling out like that any more forgiveable. 

So what happened here was that the motorist inconsiderately pulled, and by Mags two actions (one in anticipation and one when the car pulled out) he prevented an accident. 

What don't you get?


----------



## magnatom (10 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> If someone is forced to break then it is an emergency.



Blimey! It's a wonder a lot more people don't have heart attacks or strokes, with all these emergencies happening all around us.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Apr 2008)

I suspect our definition of an emergency is closer to a panic stop, whilst mr_hippo's is much broader and includes braking to avoid another's mistakes, even quite gently.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (10 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> If someone is forced to break then it is an emergency.


Interesting logic...

I am riding my bike down a cul-de-sac and there's a wall at the end. I can see it and I know there's no way around it. I am therefore _forced _to brake (I really don't want to be forced to *break*...) or I will hit it.

No emergency.

Hadn't planned on braking, but the situation arose whereby it would be imprudent not to, unless I fancied eating the wall.

You really are trying to make something of that clip.

Was it you, per chance... and now you're trying to wriggle out of the apalling display of sh*t driving?


----------



## HJ (10 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> If someone is forced to break then it is an emergency.



The driver should not have pulled out, it was a best driving without due care and attention, why should this be regarded as the cyclists fault???


----------



## mr_hippo (11 Apr 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke, thank you for pointing out my typo.
"I am riding my bike down a cul-de-sac and there's a wall at the end. I can see it and I know there's no way around it. I am therefore forced to brake". Are you just trying to be silly or is it not an act?
Was it bad driving? Yes, it was. Could the cyclist have done better? Yes.


BentMikey said:


> I suspect our definition of an emergency is closer to a panic stop, whilst mr_hippo's is much broader and includes braking to avoid another's mistakes, even quite gently.


Pray tell me, what is the difference between an emergency stop and a panic stop?


Hairy Jock said:


> *The driver should have pulled out*, it was a best driving without due care and attention, why should this be regarded as the cyclists fault???


Have you missed a word out in that sentence? Have I said that it was the cyclist's fault for the driver's error?

As for the overtaking video, yes, the car was close; is it worth making such a song and dance about it? Take a couple of chill pills and get over it!


----------



## gambatte (11 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> is it worth making such a song and dance about it? Take a couple of chill pills and get over it!



??????

Yes it is, I still feel every muscle tense watching that overtake. There's quite a few where you can see how close it was, not many videos where you can 'feel' it!

if Mags doesn't make "such a song and dance about it", it never happened. Its an incident where no one learns anything.

We can talk about retribution and lets 'get' the driver. However, having the coppers turn up on the door may be the thing that gets the driver to reconsider their driving and keep them out of prison for causing death by dangerous driving in the future.

I'd rather the coppers had a word before he drives anywhere near me!


----------



## BentMikey (11 Apr 2008)

So you still haven't made your point mr_hippo? Come, spit it out man, we're not mind readers.


----------



## mr_hippo (11 Apr 2008)

The 'close' overtake - nothing to make a song and dance about, is it?
The Peugeot' incident - yes, the driver was wrong for pulling out but if the cyclist was aware of what may happen, it could have been avoided easily. 
Do I post 'incidents' on here whinging and wailing? Do you want me to post on here a compilation of 'incidents' from just one of my rides?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (11 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Do you want me to post on here a compilation of 'incidents' from just one of my rides?


No, I'd rather you just be quiet unless you have some point to make sensibly.

"The cyclist should have assumed/known/thought that the car driver would do that and so should have done better" (paraphrasing what you've said) - utter bollox. The car driver should have been concentrating, the cyclist shouldn't have had to do anything other than enjoy the space on the road that he's entitled to without having to avoid any prat of a driver pulling out on him.

The driver clearly slows to a halt at the junction. At that point I'd be thinking, "great, he/she's seen me, spidey-sense can stand down"... but no, the idiot then waits for a second or two and then pulls out without a hint of braking or attempting to avoid the cyclist.

I still suspect it must have been you in the car, you seem hell bent on defending them.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (11 Apr 2008)

Blimey, that was close. I don't understand why you didn't go to the front of the queue though - it's one of the places a competent cyclist is faster than a car - and (granted that you know the road much better than I do) I'm not convinced of the need for such a dominant primary position there either. There's no excuse for overtaking like that though, best of luck with getting them to at least have a word with this idiot.


----------



## gambatte (11 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> The 'close' overtake - nothing to make a song and dance about, is it?
> The Peugeot' incident - yes, the driver was wrong for pulling out but if the cyclist was aware of what may happen, it could have been avoided easily.
> Do I post 'incidents' on here whinging and wailing? Do you want me to post on here a compilation of 'incidents' from just one of my rides?



Mr H.

We all need safer roads. If no song and dance were made everything stays the same. If it wasn't for people making a 'song and dance' we wouldn't have the drink drive laws we have today.

The overtake was dangerous, potentially fatal with a wobble or a crosswind.

I notice you're down as 'Bangkok', how long since you cycled regularly in the UK?


----------



## BentMikey (11 Apr 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I don't understand why you didn't go to the front of the queue though



Because it's good practice to stay behind the first or second car in the queue - it usually leads to less stress and fewer poor overtakes than if you go to the front of the queue. Recommended in Cyclecraft.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (11 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> The magic word is undertake. I did not undertake, I filtered. The traffic was completely stationary. This motorbike article references a court case with regards to filtering which the proof I think you required to show that filtering is legal.
> 
> http://www.motorbikestoday.com/news/Articles/filtering_law.htm
> 
> Concede DG?




I wasn't in dispute with you. I wanted to know what the law said rather than what you said. The information you provided will help in my forthcoming court case against a left hooker who is pleading not guilty despite turning left into my path without indicating and presumably not chcking his mirrors.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Apr 2008)

No-one's whinging and wailing, mr_hippo, but it seems to me you don't like something about magnatom's videos or have an axe to grind.

I think it's good to show roadcraft and behaviour on youtube like this. These topics are great for us all to learn from, and to question our own way of riding as well as others' use of the roads.


----------



## beanzontoast (11 Apr 2008)

gambatte said:


> If no song and dance were made everything stays the same.



At least nowadays video evidence puts the 'facts' on record. Things that would have been the experience of just one individual a few years back can be shared, debated and conclusions drawn. I'd have been surprised if everyone seeing the video had come to the same conclusion.


----------



## mr_hippo (11 Apr 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> No, I'd rather you just be quiet unless you have some point to make sensibly.
> *I am making a sensible point - please take your blinkers off!*
> "The cyclist should have assumed/known/thought that the car driver would do that and so should have done better" (paraphrasing what you've said) - utter bollox. The car driver should have been concentrating, the cyclist shouldn't have had to do anything other than enjoy the space on the road that he's entitled to without having to avoid any prat of a driver pulling out on him.
> *Now you are talking a load of bollox! So you just cycle along the road without a care in the world? Are you not aware of your surroundings, conditions or other road users?*
> ...





gambatte said:


> Mr H.
> I notice you're down as 'Bangkok', how long since you cycled regularly in the UK?


Not for a few years but feel free to come to Bangkok and sample the traffic over here - you may not survive!


----------



## gambatte (11 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> Not for a few years but feel free to come to Bangkok and sample the traffic over here - you may not survive!



My suspicion, you're now used to a different road situation and road legislation. No judgement as to 'better' or 'worse', just different.


----------



## magnatom (11 Apr 2008)

Just had a chat with the police. They are going to see if they can locate the driver and if he is local they will go and have a personal chat with him to try find out why he did it. They will then take it from there. If he is not local they will have to get someone else to go have a chat.

DG, sorry if I misread your intentions. I have been getting some abuse, threats etc lately, that's why my hackles are up! Do you have any more detail on what happened to you?

Mr_hippo, let me clarify this, remembering that I was actually there.

I was cycling along that road fully aware of the car approaching the junction. She was fully in my line of view the whole time. You will notice that as soon as she starts to move beyond her stop line that my head turns towards her. This suggests that I was watching the car. My breaking starts whilst she is still on the other side of the road. This braking is not emergency braking. I could have pulled much harder on my brake levers. I did not need to emergency brake because I had seen the lady pull out early on. I avoidied any risk of collision despite her best efforts to pull into my line of travel. What else could I have done. I suppose I could have taken my car that day. Is that what you are suggesting?

I place my videos online for everyone to discuss and I fully understand that some people will disagree with me. That is part of the reason why I do it. To help others and to learn from others. 

One thing I have learned from posting my videos is that there are some people who will find fault with anything that they can find or they imagine that they can find. You can argue with them until they are blue in the face but you will never convince them that, for instance, that the style of my hair on that particular day did not antagonise a following driver.

On that note Mr_hippo, continue to argue your point as much as you like, however, I haven't the time or inclination to reply any more.

I thank you!


----------



## Terminator (11 Apr 2008)

I had a closer one than that a few years back he was so close the car actually brushed my leg.I know he used turtle wax to shine his car I had enough of it over my leg.


----------



## Cab (11 Apr 2008)

mr_hippo said:


> The 'close' overtake - nothing to make a song and dance about, is it?



You condone dangerous driving, then. Note, I'm not putting that forward as a question, its a statement of fact. A close overtake _is_ something to make a 'song and dance' about, because dangerous driving like that leads to accidents and discourages cyclists from our roads. You don't think that matters, you are positively, absolutely, definitely, categorically wrong. Or you just don't give a $hi7 about cyclists, in which case you're worse than wrong, you're just plain nasty.



> The Peugeot' incident - yes, the driver was wrong for pulling out but if the cyclist was aware of what may happen, it could have been avoided easily.



And the cyclist DID avoid the accident. You don't really have a point here, do you? Admit it, you know you've got nothing constructive to add.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (11 Apr 2008)

So it's not just me that wonders what Mr Hippo is prattling on about.

Glad about that.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (11 Apr 2008)

I wonder if Magnatom's celebrity status will make the Police take note of this case of appalling driving. My status as a nobody led them to feel that this video didn't provide enough evidence to do something about the van driver in question.


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hgbNmiq1Png


----------



## HJ (11 Apr 2008)

Jacomus-rides-Gen said:


> I wonder if Magnatom's celebrity status will make the Police take note of this case of appalling driving. My status as a nobody led them to feel that this video didn't provide enough evidence to do something about the van driver in question.
> 
> 
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hgbNmiq1Png




No, it is just the cultural difference between Glasgow and Surrey...


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (11 Apr 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> No, it is just the cultural difference between Glasgow and Surrey...



Damnit, I _knew_ I should have gone out in my Porsche Cayanne Turbo with Extra Fuel Consumption, Trophy Wife and Lifestyle - they would have been on it in a shot then.


----------



## buggi (11 Apr 2008)

Mag, i've only just seen this thread as haven't been on here but this is a classic case of what happened to me with Mr Aston Martin. The guy was pist off you took primary in front of him in the queue (where there was a convenient gap) and was deliberately out to get you. i hope you have reported him.


----------



## magnatom (13 May 2008)

Sorry to bring up an old thread but I recently got in touch with the constable who I reported this to. He went and had a chat with the guy who apparently clammed up and said almost nothing (the policeman suggested that he obviously knew what he was doing.) 

The policeman apparently read him the riot act, but as there was no proof of who actually was driving the car (didn't catch him on video) he couldn't do anything else.

A result of sorts, I suppose.


----------



## gambatte (13 May 2008)

A result.

Education of the ignorant and dangerous, amongst the car driving masses, has to start somewhere


----------



## goo_mason (13 May 2008)

Indeed. If it makes drivers think that their dangerous driving might get picked up on and involve a visit from the police, it's a result.

He may just improve his driving in future and pay more attention to what he's doing. Everyone needs to learn from their mistakes - it just takes some people to have that mistake hammered home before they realise that their actions were downright dangerous !


----------

