Motorist, I'm manipulating you

Tom Crispin said:

Please let me know if this link has already been posed. I've been
away for the last week and haven't had a chance to read all the posted
messages.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1704796,00.html

The point about the distance between the kerb is interesting and I
totally agree with the looking behind you theory (from experience many
cars think you're about to do something if you look behind and are
cautious).

pete

Tom Crispin said:

Please let me know if this link has already been posed. I've been
away for the last week and haven't had a chance to read all the posted
messages.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1704796,00.html

Nice to see the instructor quoting the theory of Big.. I was once asked
whether I thought it was dangerous cycling along X road and responded
that it was perfectly safe as long as you understood how to herd
traffic. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. The key to safety is
being noticd and that requires ensuring that other traffic responds to
your presence.

...d

"naked_draughtsman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The point about the distance between the kerb is interesting and I
totally agree with the looking behind you theory (from experience many
cars think you're about to do something if you look behind and are
cautious).

I find that I can pretty much tell what's happening behind from the *sound*
of traffic, and when simply cruising along it serves no real purpose to be
constantly looking behind. I mainly do the checking over the shoulder when
I'm switching lanes and turning right.

Adrian Boliston said:

"naked_draughtsman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The point about the distance between the kerb is interesting and I
totally agree with the looking behind you theory (from experience
many cars think you're about to do something if you look behind and
are cautious).

I find that I can pretty much tell what's happening behind from the
*sound* of traffic, and when simply cruising along it serves no real
purpose to be constantly looking behind. I mainly do the checking
over the shoulder when I'm switching lanes and turning right.

I think they're saying that the look behind assures the following drivers
that you are aware of them.
--

Martin Bulmer

Adrian Boliston said:

"naked_draughtsman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The point about the distance between the kerb is interesting and I
totally agree with the looking behind you theory (from experience many
cars think you're about to do something if you look behind and are
cautious).

I find that I can pretty much tell what's happening behind from the *sound*
of traffic, and when simply cruising along it serves no real purpose to be
constantly looking behind. I mainly do the checking over the shoulder when
I'm switching lanes and turning right.

Looking behind and gaining eye contact turns you from an object of
hate which doesn't belong on the road into a human being.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Crispin said:

Please let me know if this link has already been posed. I've been
away for the last week and haven't had a chance to read all the posted
messages.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1704796,00.html

Nice to see the instructor quoting the theory of Big.. I was once asked
whether I thought it was dangerous cycling along X road and responded
that it was perfectly safe as long as you understood how to herd
traffic. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. The key to safety is
being noticd and that requires ensuring that other traffic responds to
your presence.

I was draughting a bus the other day and could tell that the car behind was
sitting on my back wheel, prone to overtake despite nowhere to go. Time to
get Big. Quick look around at the driver, right arm off the handlebar. Smack
in the middle of the lane. He was risking my life, as I wanted to be able to
quickly nip past the bus at the first sign of it slowing. I was also
travelling with the traffic. But yes, another "have to get past" attack.

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was draughting a bus the other day and could tell that the car behind
was sitting on my back wheel, prone to overtake despite nowhere to go.
Time to get Big. Quick look around at the driver, right arm off the
handlebar. Smack in the middle of the lane. He was risking my life, as I
wanted to be able to quickly nip past the bus at the first sign of it
slowing. I was also travelling with the traffic. But yes, another "have to
get past" attack.

And it's not just with cyclists the morons do it. Yesterday I took Nathan's
Cervelo into Naarch, to Naarch's finest LBS, Specialised Cycles, to get the
crankset & BB removed as my personal Bike Mechanic didn't have the correct
tool, as well as get some brake blocks for carbon rims whilst there. I was
driving through Taverham which has both 40mph & 30mph limits. I was driving
at or below the the speed limit. There was a fool in a BMW (quelle surprise
it was a BMW...) who seemed to take personal affront at the car in front of
him actually adhering to the speed limits. He made it clear he wanted to be
past me. Of course, he couldn't overtake as there was oncoming traffic...
but hey, the car in front was travelling within the speed limit - of course
he had to get upset. Nathan was with me and he was chuckling at the obvious
moronic tendency of the BMW driver, who was sticking to the rear of my car
like a limpit. If I'd have had to brake suddenly... At one point, there was
a cyclist in front of me and coming up, a pedestrian refuge in the middle of
the road thus narrowing the road, plus oncoming traffic. So, being a little
goody-two-shoes, I held back, so as not to squeeze the cyclist at the pinch
point. No problem to me, but to the BMW driver behind... good grief, I was
not overtaking!! I was having a fist shaken at me (I could see via my
rear-view mirror). Shortly after this, once through the narrowed section of
road, I could overtake the cyclist safely. Unlike me, BMW man did not
actually move right to overtake the cyclist... Then after this BMW man
decided to sit on my tail again. He got so wound up at me adhering to the
speed limit that when he did overtake me, he did so on a hill, where you
could not see over the brow of the hill... Not far beyond that was a set of
traffic lights: on red. Guess who was the car in front of me at the traffic
lights?? He'd got exactly nowhere fast...

On the plus side, once at Specialised Cycles, the crankset & BB of Nathan's
Cervelo was out in seconds, and the brake blocks purchased. One happy
offspring who spent the evening fettling with his bike.

Cheers, helen s

elyob said:

I was draughting a bus the other day and could tell that the car behind was
sitting on my back wheel, prone to overtake despite nowhere to go. Time to
get Big. Quick look around at the driver, right arm off the handlebar. Smack
in the middle of the lane. He was risking my life, as I wanted to be able to
quickly nip past the bus at the first sign of it slowing. I was also
travelling with the traffic. But yes, another "have to get past" attack.

He was simply trying to follow the Golden Rule. "All cyclists must be
instantly overtaken regardless of road conditions."

--
Dave...

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:08:17 +0000 (UTC),

wafflycat w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was draughting a bus the other day and could tell that the car behind
was sitting on my back wheel, prone to overtake despite nowhere to go.
Time to get Big. Quick look around at the driver, right arm off the
handlebar. Smack in the middle of the lane. He was risking my life, as I
wanted to be able to quickly nip past the bus at the first sign of it
slowing. I was also travelling with the traffic. But yes, another "have to
get past" attack.

And it's not just with cyclists the morons do it.

I think this is important - we all tend to feel as if some drivers are
actively picking cyclists out for special attention (or rather lack of it).
However in reality these drivers are just bad - they treat all road-users
cars, motorbikes, bikes even peds terribly - and they should be removed
from the genepool^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H road as soon as possible.

Personally I would prefer periodic retesting of drivers in order for them to
retain their licence. I wonder what percentage of current drivers would
fail?

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

wafflycat said:

At one point, there was
a cyclist in front of me and coming up, a pedestrian refuge in the middle of
the road thus narrowing the road, plus oncoming traffic. So, being a little
goody-two-shoes, I held back, so as not to squeeze the cyclist at the pinch
point. No problem to me, but to the BMW driver behind... good grief, I was
not overtaking!! I was having a fist shaken at me (I could see via my
rear-view mirror).

Of course he was upset. You had violated the Golden Rule.

Quoted message said:

Shortly after this, once through the narrowed section of
road, I could overtake the cyclist safely. Unlike me, BMW man did not
actually move right to overtake the cyclist... Then after this BMW man
decided to sit on my tail again.

Controlling the traffic behind, which I think is a better term than
manipulating, is also something you can do as a car driver.

When you follow another car you leave a safe gap in front of you. It's
not so easy to leave a safe gap behind you, so all you can do is adjust
your speed until you judge that the gap the [censored] behind you is leaving
is a safe one. Probably won't be good for his blood pressure though.

Quoted message said:

He got so wound up at me adhering to the
speed limit that when he did overtake me, he did so on a hill, where you
could not see over the brow of the hill... Not far beyond that was a set of
traffic lights: on red. Guess who was the car in front of me at the traffic
lights?? He'd got exactly nowhere fast...

Quelle surprise! Of course he would have been in the pub that evening
moaning that something should be done to make cyclists follow the
Highway Code. Ho hum.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

When you follow another car you leave a safe gap in front of you. It's
not so easy to leave a safe gap behind you, so all you can do is adjust
your speed until you judge that the gap the [censored] behind you is leaving
is a safe one. Probably won't be good for his blood pressure though.

I was taught that to compensate for someone driving too close behind,
you should leave more space in front as this allows you a greater spqce
in which to stop which means that the twunt behind is less likely to
add his momentum to yours. This does also have the side effect that the
closer they drive to you, the slower you often get. Amazingly, the
normally brilliant human skill for pattern matching appears to vanish
at those moments when it could be most usefully employed.

Jon

wafflycat said:

If I'd have had to brake suddenly...

It can be quite amusing to tap the brakes with your left foot while
continuing to keep your right foot on the accelerator. They suddenly
find themselves approaching you too fast to stop and are saved by your
pulling away from them. I find it works quite well on getting people on
my tail to fall back a bit.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

wafflycat said:

If I'd have had to brake suddenly...

My philosophy is that if they want to drive that close, I will go at a
speed at which it is safe to do so, ie I will slow right down.

For example, I had some muppet tailgating me on the motorway the other
day. I was doing not much over 40 - it was in a section of roadworks
with narrow lanes and a 50 limit. It was also dark and it was raining
heavily, so 40 was plenty fast enough for the conditions. He started
flashing me and waving his fist, and got so close he must have been mere
inches from by bumper, so I [gradually] slowed down to about 25.

No skin off my nose - I wasn't the one in a hurry...

OK, so there's nothing big or clever about being a sanctimonious prig,
but I refuse to allow myself to be bullied by tossers who think they own
the road. And just to get this back on topic, the same applies when I am
on my bike, as per what it says in that Matt Seaton article.

Quoted message said:

Guess who was the
car in front of me at the traffic lights?? He'd got exactly nowhere fast...

I hope you waved at him.

d.

Andy Leighton said:

Personally I would prefer periodic retesting of drivers in order for them to
retain their licence. I wonder what percentage of current drivers would
fail?

Upwards of 85 per cent, I'd guess. I like to think I'm a considerate,
careful driver, but I wouldn't be confident of passing my test again -
especially as the test is now somewhat tougher than when I took it.

But since there are huge numbers of unlicensed drivers out there anyway,
I'm not sure it would make a huge amount of difference anyway.

d.

Tony Raven said:

It can be quite amusing to tap the brakes with your left foot while
continuing to keep your right foot on the accelerator. They suddenly
find themselves approaching you too fast to stop and are saved by your
pulling away from them. I find it works quite well on getting people on
my tail to fall back a bit.

Yes, I often do the same. But if you are on a motorway, and they are
stuck behind you for a long stretch, I find that once you have tried
this a couple of times they cotton on. And then if you really have to
brake hard suddenly, you could find yourself in trouble, like a boy who
cried wolf kind of thing.

d.

dkahn400 said:

elyob said:

I was draughting a bus the other day and could tell that the car behind was
sitting on my back wheel, prone to overtake despite nowhere to go. Time to
get Big. Quick look around at the driver, right arm off the handlebar. Smack
in the middle of the lane. He was risking my life, as I wanted to be able to
quickly nip past the bus at the first sign of it slowing. I was also
travelling with the traffic. But yes, another "have to get past" attack.

He was simply trying to follow the Golden Rule. "All cyclists must be
instantly overtaken regardless of road conditions."

They have to if they want to approach the average speed of a bicycle in
an urban environment. Daily I see the most inconsiderate and dangerous
overtaking manouvers to pass me on a hill, then after the hill I filter
past and never see them again. But I think they are a greater danger
to themselves and road users coming the opposite way than to me, cuz
they are going too fast to cut in all that close.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I often do the same. But if you are on a motorway, and they are
stuck behind you for a long stretch, I find that once you have tried
this a couple of times they cotton on. And then if you really have to
brake hard suddenly, you could find yourself in trouble, like a boy
who cried wolf kind of thing.

If with passengers, getting one of them to take a photo would work well.
Not sure it would be a good idea to use the flash at night tho.

davek said:

For example, I had some muppet tailgating me on the motorway the other
day. I was doing not much over 40 - it was in a section of roadworks
with narrow lanes and a 50 limit. It was also dark and it was raining
heavily, so 40 was plenty fast enough for the conditions. He started
flashing me and waving his fist, and got so close he must have been mere
inches from by bumper, so I [gradually] slowed down to about 25.

At night in the rain on a motorway I can never see anything inside the
car behind let alone a waiving fist. YMMV

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

davek said:

Andy Leighton said:

Personally I would prefer periodic retesting of drivers in order for them to
retain their licence. I wonder what percentage of current drivers would
fail?

Upwards of 85 per cent, I'd guess. I like to think I'm a considerate,
careful driver, but I wouldn't be confident of passing my test again -
especially as the test is now somewhat tougher than when I took it.

But since there are huge numbers of unlicensed drivers out there anyway,
I'm not sure it would make a huge amount of difference anyway.

ISTR either a TV program or something I read somewhere (or might have
been something I read about a TV program) where they got 10 motorists
they met on a motorway service station to retake their L test. 7
failed.

But I've been googling for it and I can't find it. (If I did see it on
TV then it will have been 20 years ago)

Tim.