doog
....
- Location
- The beautiful south
what is 'roading normally'..surely you ride to the road conditions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't always blame the motorist.
- Thread starter gavroche
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
what is 'roading normally'..surely you ride to the road conditions.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Does something have to be backed by official numbers to be true? Plenty of evidence of the existence of "cyclist hating Cyclists" with motor-centric mindsets in this thread, in this forum, probably in your cycling club, or amongst your Cyclist friends, certainly in my cycling club, et cetera.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Remind me, what were the cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?
Last edited by a moderator:
doog
....
- Location
- The beautiful south
wtf are you talking about..where did I say they were doing anything dangerous ?
'kin hell
Usenet, newsgroups, kill files, plonking. Ah, happy days.I've heard that defence before, but not since the 1980s.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
The OP claims the cyclists were doing something dangerouswtf are you talking about..where did I say they were doing anything dangerous ?
'kin hell
You have characterised those who have argued against the OP as mere keyboard warriors, if you will as poseurs, dilettantes, lightweights, hobbyists, newcomers, low mileage wasters and, in my case, described me a muppet and a dickhead. (Which I've reported btw)
You have consistently defended the OP's point of view, albeit in a manner often lacking clarity.
So do tell me, in your considered opinion as an experienced long-distance Cyclist of long-standing, supremely well qualified to offer a definitive opinion on the matter, what, precisely, were the cyclists in the OP doing that was dangerous?
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
I'm afraid you are going to have to give me more details of this tragic event that causes my demise before I can apportion blame. If I had a blowout when wizzing down a hill and impaled myself on the spike of a bale lifter in the adjacent lane, I doubt my widow could sue successfully.
What have you got, Grim Reaper?
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
I admit the evenings on my todd in cph are a bit tedious and the forum provides a diversion. But it isn't terminal.
doog
....
- Location
- The beautiful south
The OP said many things however at no point did I agree, mention, hint or assume the cyclists were doing anything dangerous...
I mentioned common sense but that was based on the balance of probabilities based on the OP's observations (who was there..you werent, nor was I..)
Last edited by a moderator:
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Terminal boredom is a bit unlikely on the A30 as Porsche Cayennes close pass at 90mph within arms reach. Some kind of adrenaline overdose perhaps?
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
You are riding normally, in a manner entirely appropriate for the weather and road conditions. Let's even say you are wearing hi-viz* and an approved cycling helmet. With some retina burning rear stobe light turned on. It is Saturday mid-morning. A bright dry clear morning and the sun is behind you. You are heading west. In primary, or secondary, as is your wont. A weekender rushing to their holiday stay, generally acknowledged as not the most considerate of drivers, passes you at the speed limit, but alas passes you too close, for reasons that are unclear fromt he witness reports, and you fall from your bike and die.
Who is to blame? Surely you must be a teeny tiny bit at fault for being there in the first place?
*hi-viz doth offend mine eye.
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
I might still be alive if I hadn't been there but I appear to have been riding in exemplary fashion. Fortunately, a personal desire for self-preservation prevents me being there in the first place having made my own risk-assessment.
By the way, you are Gabriel García Márquez and ICMFP.
Extraordinarily entrenched views here. I think it's too late for any realistic prospect that anyone is going to be hauled out of their own trench to a different place, but I like a challenge. And I know I'm treading in some well-worn footsteps here.
There's not enough room for a car to overtake one bike if there's a car coming the other way.
Therefore any car behind a single bike should wait until there are no vehicles coming the other way.
There's enough room for cars to pass each other in opposite directions, and two bikes abreast are generally less wide than a car.
Therefore, there's enough room for a car to overtake two bikes abreast, presuming there's no vehicle coming the other way.
Given that a car coming the other way means it would be impossible to overtake one bike safely, the existence of a second bike (abreast of the first) doesn't alter the level of impossibility.
Net result, whether the bikes were singled out or two abreast makes not one jot of difference to how or when a following driver should overtake them.
It sounds like the cyclists did EXACTLY the right thing, and stayed two abreast, otherwise they might have invited an unsafe pass from an impatient, inconsiderate motorist. I detect no 'attitude' here, other than a desire to stay safe, with, just possibly, a little thought to the prevention of a motorist making an utter tit of himself. Thankfully their tactics appear to have been completely successful, on both counts.
I'm struggling to see how anything these two did could in any way be interpreted as 'dangerous'. Quite the opposite.
This isn't rocket engineering, the principles really are quite straightforward.
I defy anyone to out-logic this argument.
This one line should be sufficient for anyone with any sense to draw all the necessary and relevant conclusions about the appropriate behaviour of the cyclists and driver concerned.
There's not enough room for a car to overtake one bike if there's a car coming the other way.
Therefore any car behind a single bike should wait until there are no vehicles coming the other way.
There's enough room for cars to pass each other in opposite directions, and two bikes abreast are generally less wide than a car.
Therefore, there's enough room for a car to overtake two bikes abreast, presuming there's no vehicle coming the other way.
Given that a car coming the other way means it would be impossible to overtake one bike safely, the existence of a second bike (abreast of the first) doesn't alter the level of impossibility.
Net result, whether the bikes were singled out or two abreast makes not one jot of difference to how or when a following driver should overtake them.
It sounds like the cyclists did EXACTLY the right thing, and stayed two abreast, otherwise they might have invited an unsafe pass from an impatient, inconsiderate motorist. I detect no 'attitude' here, other than a desire to stay safe, with, just possibly, a little thought to the prevention of a motorist making an utter tit of himself. Thankfully their tactics appear to have been completely successful, on both counts.
On this forum, we tend to be quick to criticise motorists but cyclists are no angels either and can do some pretty dangerous riding when two or more.
I'm struggling to see how anything these two did could in any way be interpreted as 'dangerous'. Quite the opposite.
This isn't rocket engineering, the principles really are quite straightforward.
I defy anyone to out-logic this argument.
Last edited:
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
The End.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
What is this attitude with which you take issue?
That I don't agree with you but choose to do so without resorting to personal insults?
That I don't agree with your elitist criteria for being able to hold an opinion, even though my credentials, and those of others, mean we qualify as members of your elite group of Cyclists?
That I don't agree with your definition and application of "common sense", whatever the heck that actually is?
Or that my view on the balance of probabilities based on the OP's observations is different to yours?
Or do you just have a chip on your shoulder when people don't agree with you?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
