Re: cyclist nearly kills himself

Tony Raven said:

NM wrote on 18/12/2006 11:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

>
Probably already been pointed out but:
143: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
users. For example

* approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
* ...
* ...
* ...
* ...
* when you would force another vehicle to swerve or slow down

15m is a couple of seconds travel on a bicycle at 15mph.

Who invented this 15 mph, I can't see it in the original post?

That would be a typical cyclist speed.

But nevertheless a complete assumption.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems the cycle passed the car whilst the car was stopped, passed on
it's near side, in contravention of the rule quoted above. Also the
cyclist failed to make himself conspicious as advised in the H.C. and
positioned himself poorly.

Or that the overtaking of the cyclist was never actually completed. 15m
is about 1 second travel at 30mph to put it in perspective. Could you
overtake while slowing to a stop in one second? If it was the cyclist
should probably have stayed behind but if not then undoing an incomplete
overtaking manoeuvre is better than sitting on the inside or trying to
push your bike backwards.

There is no evidence in the original post to back up your assumptions.
It clearly states he had just finished passing the cyclist. Read the
part you snipped out it may help.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Makes you wonder why the cyclist wasn't on the pavement where they
usually are.

Is that a pavement pavement or a pavement shared used facility pavement
or a pavement cycle path pavement you are thinking of?

Any pavement will do you can find cyclists infesting all of them

Quoted message said:

NM said:

Tony Raven said:

NM wrote on 18/12/2006 11:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven wrote:

Makes you wonder why the cyclist wasn't on the pavement where they
usually are.

Is that a pavement pavement or a pavement shared used facility pavement
or a pavement cycle path pavement you are thinking of?

Any pavement will do you can find cyclists infesting all of them

I'm sure I've been trolled, but what the bell.

'Round my neck of the woods it's entirely motorists infesting the pavements,
making life hell for pedestrians. The cyclists are a model of decorum by
comparison.

"NM" wrote in message

Tony Raven wrote> > Is that a pavement pavement or a pavement shared used
facility pavement

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or a pavement cycle path pavement you are thinking of?

Any pavement will do you can find cyclists infesting all of them

Quoted message said:

So you don't care what cyclists do, just so long as they get out of "your"
way?

Mike Sales

On 18/12/2006 12:27, NM said,

Quoted message said:

Any pavement will do you can find cyclists infesting all of them

Try walking along some of the pavements in my neck of the woods. Many
of them are obstructed by cars, parked or otherwise, in some cases
forcing pedestrians, pushchairs and wheelchairs (and pavement
cyclists!!!!) into the road to get past.

Also, many of the cyclists you may see cycling on "pavements" may
actually be on what many local councils laughingly call "cycling
facilities". These consist of a splash of white paint and maybe a blue
sign, and allegedly make it safe all of a sudden for a cyclist to
legally use the pavement. These "facilities" only exist so that said
councils can tick the box that says "x miles of facilities provided",
and are not intended to actually be possible to be used by cyclists.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

NM said:

There is no evidence in the original post to back up your assumptions.
It clearly states he had just finished passing the cyclist. Read the
part you snipped out it may help.

But given that the motorist in question freely admits to being unable
to see a cyclist six feet away in front of him, the chances of him
being able to accurately identify the location of a cyclist 10 feet
away behind him is, at best, questionable.

On the basis of the motorist's testimony about his powers of
observation, I wouldn't trust his assertions about where the cyclist
was. It's not a particularly uncommon disability - lots of motorists
seem to think cyclists disappear (or at least, cease to occupy space in
this dimension) as soon as they get the wing of their car alongside.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

NM said:

There is no evidence in the original post to back up your assumptions.
It clearly states he had just finished passing the cyclist. Read the
part you snipped out it may help.

But given that the motorist in question freely admits to being unable
to see a cyclist six feet away in front of him, the chances of him
being able to accurately identify the location of a cyclist 10 feet
away behind him is, at best, questionable.

He said that whilst he was waiting for a clear entry
path onto the roundabout, he wasn't looking in the
direction of his front nearside quarter. Perhaps he
should have done so, but he didn't.

But twisting "didn't see because wasn't looking in that
direction" into "unable to see" is really unhelpful -
isn't it?

Paul Boyd said:

On 18/12/2006 12:27, NM said,

Quoted message said:

Any pavement will do you can find cyclists infesting all of them

Try walking along some of the pavements in my neck of the woods. Many
of them are obstructed by cars, parked or otherwise, in some cases
forcing pedestrians, pushchairs and wheelchairs (and pavement
cyclists!!!!) into the road to get past.

Also, many of the cyclists you may see cycling on "pavements" may
actually be on what many local councils laughingly call "cycling
facilities". These consist of a splash of white paint and maybe a blue
sign, and allegedly make it safe all of a sudden for a cyclist to
legally use the pavement. These "facilities" only exist so that said
councils can tick the box that says "x miles of facilities provided",
and are not intended to actually be possible to be used by cyclists.

Maybe so, I was referencing in my mind the pedestriaised high street at
Lewisham where you have to have your wits about you to avoid getting
mowed down, I've even seen kids riding through the Riverdale shopping
arcade and the market stalls.

They also have those jokingly called 'cycle facillities' around there,
those on the victorian estate at Hilly Fields I've never seen a bike
on, complete waste of money that also damages the image of cyclists.

JNugent said:

He said that whilst he was waiting for a clear entry path onto the
roundabout, he wasn't looking in the direction of his front nearside
quarter. Perhaps he should have done so, but he didn't.

The complaint that the cyclist was not wearing "light-coloured or
fluorescent clothing " is therefore pretty irrelevant as regards the
cause of the incident. No amount of hiviz is sufficient to make drivers
able to see out of the side of their head.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

On 18/12/2006 19:32, NM said,

Quoted message said:

I've even seen kids riding through the Riverdale shopping
arcade and the market stalls.

Ah - but they're not cyclists - they're POBs :-) (Pedestrians On Bikes)

Quoted message said:

They also have those jokingly called 'cycle facillities' around there,
those on the victorian estate at Hilly Fields I've never seen a bike
on, complete waste of money that also damages the image of cyclists.

I'm grateful that you didn't come out with the "expensive facilities
that cyclists demand" line!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Daniel Barlow said:

JNugent said:

He said that whilst he was waiting for a clear entry path onto the
roundabout, he wasn't looking in the direction of his front nearside
quarter. Perhaps he should have done so, but he didn't.

The complaint that the cyclist was not wearing "light-coloured or
fluorescent clothing " is therefore pretty irrelevant as regards the
cause of the incident. No amount of hiviz is sufficient to make drivers
able to see out of the side of their head.

Absolutely.

NM said:

Tony Raven said:

NM wrote on 18/12/2006 11:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

>

Who invented this 15 mph, I can't see it in the original post?

That would be a typical cyclist speed.

But nevertheless a complete assumption.

Feel free to make a different assumption and demonstrate how it
materially changes the outcome.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or that the overtaking of the cyclist was never actually completed. 15m
is about 1 second travel at 30mph to put it in perspective. Could you
overtake while slowing to a stop in one second? If it was the cyclist
should probably have stayed behind but if not then undoing an incomplete
overtaking manoeuvre is better than sitting on the inside or trying to
push your bike backwards.

There is no evidence in the original post to back up your assumptions.
It clearly states he had just finished passing the cyclist. Read the
part you snipped out it may help.

If the driver was observant enough to know he had 'just finished
overtaking', it beggars belief that he was insufficiently observant to
know that the cyclist had not stopped and was therefore coming up the
nearside.

NM said:

Maybe so, I was referencing in my mind the pedestriaised high street at
Lewisham where you have to have your wits about you to avoid getting
mowed down, I've even seen kids riding through the Riverdale shopping
arcade and the market stalls.

I don't doubt that. In different years, those same kids would be on
skatebards, rollers kates, micro-scooters or pogo sticks. More to do
with general hooliganism than cycling, per se.

Quoted message said:

They also have those jokingly called 'cycle facillities' around there,
those on the victorian estate at Hilly Fields I've never seen a bike
on, complete waste of money that also damages the image of cyclists.

Indeed.

NM said:

Tony Raven said:

NM wrote on 18/12/2006 11:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven wrote:
>>
> Probably already been pointed out but:
> 143: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
> users. For example
>
> * approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
> * ...
> * ...
> * ...
> * ...
> * when you would force another vehicle to swerve or slow down
>
> 15m is a couple of seconds travel on a bicycle at 15mph.
>
Who invented this 15 mph, I can't see it in the original post?

That would be a typical cyclist speed.

But nevertheless a complete assumption.

It was clearly an example of how long it takes a bike to travel 15m,
not a description of what happened.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems the cycle passed the car whilst the car was stopped, passed on
it's near side, in contravention of the rule quoted above. Also the
cyclist failed to make himself conspicious as advised in the H.C. and
positioned himself poorly.

After the car has passed the cycle far too close to the roundabout, in
contravention of the advice in the HC.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or that the overtaking of the cyclist was never actually completed. 15m
is about 1 second travel at 30mph to put it in perspective. Could you
overtake while slowing to a stop in one second? If it was the cyclist
should probably have stayed behind but if not then undoing an incomplete
overtaking manoeuvre is better than sitting on the inside or trying to
push your bike backwards.

There is no evidence in the original post to back up your assumptions.
It clearly states he had just finished passing the cyclist. Read the
part you snipped out it may help.

It also states that he was only 15m from the roundabout. The HC
'shortest' stopping distance from a typical approach speed (30 mph) is
about 15m. A number of scenarios are possible:
(a) the OP completed the overtake then slammed on the anchors. The laws
of physics prevent a bike achieving the same 0.7g deceleration, so the
cyclist had little choice but re-pass the OP's vehicle.
(b) the OP's "completed the overtake" was more like a typical car
driver's thought process - I can't see you through my windscreen so you
must be behind me", and probably never completed the manoeuvre.

If the distance involved was really 15m, then either a or b is entirely
the fault of the OP, for attempting a stupid overtake too close to the
roundabout. It is also possible that the OP hasn't the faintest clue
what 15 m looks like, made a safe overtake of the cyclist, and slowed
down gently to the roundabout, at which point the cyclist passed the
vehicle on the nearside. This doesn't really fit with the description
given, but even if it was correct, the OP should not have moved off
without looking through his windscreen, at which point he should have
seen the cyclist in front of him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Makes you wonder why the cyclist wasn't on the pavement where they
usually are.

Is that a pavement pavement or a pavement shared used facility pavement
or a pavement cycle path pavement you are thinking of?

Any pavement will do you can find cyclists infesting all of them

Back under your bridge, troll.

TL