They’re on the left because we drive on the left over here. Just an FYI. Flip the image if you drive on the other side.
I appreciate that the law differs from location to location, the point is that it’s illogical to force cyclists to cycle single lane. You need a clear opposing lane to overtake anyway, so it doesn’t matter if it’s 6ft or 20ft clearance, overtaking a short obstacle is easier than overtaking a long one.
The only time single lane cyclists would benefit a car driver is if they’re attempting to overtake within the same lane. Which is dangerous, so…
I’ve also shamed people on the street into picking up their trash and using the trash-can. (One of several, all conveniently placed within 10ft all around - you’d have to be completely blind not to see at least one!)
The bicyclists nearly hit a pedestrian when he was chasing the car driver. I’m not a car or a bicycle user but it annoys the way bike riders are all up in arms about car driver’s faults and yet commit all the same faults with respect to pedestrians.
[quote=“Lurker74, post:55, topic:64382, full:true”]
I appreciate your post isn’t necessarily suggesting otherwise, but to be clear there is never room on a single-lane residential street to pass a cyclist.
Ever.[/quote]
I’m not sure I agree, I’ve done it but only at a slow speed with a lot of space and a cyclist who wasn’t dealing with other possible threats (pedestrians, potholes, etc).
I think the key to a good car-bike relationship is flexibility and cooperation, to insist on rigid rules (never pass on a single lane street) counters the versatility that is the bikes biggest advantage. If a bike can safely move to the side a bit to expedite a safer quicker pass it should. And if the car has to slow down because there’s no safe place to pass it should do the same.
In this case I think it was possible for the car to pass further to the side and give the bike a couple meters worth of space while slowing down a bit. If not and there was no safe pass for a while I feel the cyclist should have taken the next stop sign or other opportunity to let the car pass.
Well, the driver got a caution, which is good. But it was for a public order offence - i.e. threat of assault, most likely - not for the bad driving. Which is bad,
I reckon almost anyone who’s serious about riding on the road should be using drop bars. It’s not about getting low, although that’s much faster (you can have them as high as you like) - it’s about the fact they’re only as wide as your shoulders, while flat bars are always much wider (even if you cut them down, you can’t get much below 50cm without being cramped). The cameras probably have wide-angle lenses, which would probably make it look like there’s more room, but I bet the rider’s on flat bars, given the width of a Peugot and that street. Bit of a wimp in my book, but that motorist! What an utter fuckstick! And now he’s famous; 5M views
You deserve more than two likes for absolutely almost nailing it.
(Obiously there’s a minimum safe distance that’s significantly more than a millimetre.)
I don’t know about the rules where you are, but at least here usually the math just won’t work out. The car has to pass at least 1.5m (~5’) from the cyclist. Add the width of the bicycle, a modest distance from bicycle to curb, the full width of the car and preferably some distance on the other side of the car. You need a damn wide lane for all that.
I can understand being a little nervous about having this car passing me (the rear camera captures the car approaching, but it is going pretty fast and the cyclist may not have expected it to pass so closely without waiting at all). Still, I don’t think I would be too upset - it seems a bit petty to get so annoyed at someone who gave you 1.5m rather than the proper 2 that you chase them down and confront them. As others have said, you could report them using your footage as evidence, then you’re much less likely to end up in a road rage situation.
There’s 1.5m between the car and the other car. That’s a 1.5m gap, not a distance of 1.5m between the car and the bike. Also account for door checking and that doesn’t leave much room. And as you pointed out the speed is a factor - and that driver wasn’t passing safely.
It was physically possible, but it wasn’t safe - and I don’t think he passed him slow enough, even if he felt the need to get past him and save 10 seconds off his journey. These kinds of streets have junctions every 100ft or so, he wasn’t stuck behind the cyclist any longer than he’d have been stuck behind any other vehicle.
Look it’s really, really simple. Would you pass a car on that road? Whatever the answer is should also apply to passing a cyclist. You need two lanes to overtake - end of story.
I still don’t understand the purpose of this sentiment. He’s not a robot, and emotions get the better of all of us. Obviously attempting a confrontation (loose definition of the word given how he spoke to him) isn’t a good thing, obviously. But can you understand why he did it? I certainly can. And given that the police couldn’t give two monkeys about dangerous driving reports at least the guy got a grilling and a face-plant he won’t forget. Good outcome if you ask me.
I dunno, without keeping a particular eye out for them, I see a LOT of stories of cyclist deaths in London, which is a city where other forms of transport are also a) inconvenient and b) expensive as all hell- that is, cycling is both dangerous, and a sensible economic choice. I think that taking constant ride video & using it to campaign for better driver behaviour is an extremely rational move in those circumstances.
Correction: I guess this video is not from London. Outside of London, the economics vs death risk calculation is probably slightly different, but I think that cyclist video is still a useful piece of the cultural-shift arsenal however that equation comes out.
At which point, the litterer would have spewed expletives at you, and then run after you threatening to do you physical harm. Fortunately, his own clumsiness (or a piece of banana peel he dropped earlier) would have prevented him from catching you.
Afterwards, you’d have a forum full of people debating whether it was really appropriate to pick up other people’s trash and how you should have just carried it to the nearest trash can yourself. After all, you were behaving needlessly aggressive by picking up other people’s trash, and when you confront other people about their misdeeds, you are always in the wrong and deserve any beating you might get.
Or at least that’s how half of the people here seem to think about cyclists.
Well, the video only has that many views because he chased the guy down and he gave that wonderful performance. The rest of his videos aren’t nearly as entertaining. Though this particular one will certainly help him get more exposure for his cause.
Your seen to think all cyclists are correct and all drivers are wrong. And that is exactly what is wrong. Guess what? There are some responsible drivers and some irresponsible cyclists. HBO Sports just had a great segment on this very issue.
As I mentioned up thread, both individuals suffered from road rage issues. Whether you’re in a car, on a bike, or running, approaching someone and telling them they’re wrong is just going to escalate. And I simply agreed when someone else mentioned that he almost ran into a pedestrian. And look how this has escalated. The guy went it of his way to chase down driver just to point out his error. Seems a little amped up to me.
As for time trials, there are individual and team ones, correct? I’m just telling you what I’ve seen, from my bike. And if you were reading correctly, I was using figurative language (i.e., I don’t believe there was an event actually timing them).
I did wonder! The fact you stressed ‘on the right’ in the first few sentences of your reply caused me to waver though, it would have been a confusing discussion if we had that core misunderstanding The diagram certainly wouldn’t have made much sense.
The problem with this - which I think you’re missing, is that it puts the two parties on a level playing field. ‘They’re just as bad as each other’. Sorry, but no. You’re missing the point that the cyclist’s road rage was caused from his perception of nearly being injured by a reckless driver (who wouldn’t be annoyed by that??). The drivers road rage was caused from this being pointed out to him. There are times when rage is justified - it’s never a good thing, but it can be warranted. One of these parties was justifiably annoyed, only one.
And yes, you get bad cyclists, bad pedestrians, bad mobility scooters and bad car drivers. The difference is that only one of those parties is likely (*every exception to a rule) to cause significant and deadly danger to all the others should they do the wrong thing. You’re vulnerable when cycling on a road with cars, and it’s bloody infuriating when they try and murder you. That’s why walking and cycling don’t require licenses, because you’re not operating dangerous and blistering fast machinery.
Oh, and he didn’t nearly hit that pedestrian, you’re reaching. Accounting for the actual speed (after slowing the video down) he could have stopped in a heartbeat should the pedestrian decide to leap backwards into the road (?). Something the car passing the cyclist couldn’t have done should a door fling open or a pothole cause him to swerve. BUT even if hypothetically he did brush past a pedestrian while travelling at speed, while they were crossing the road appropriately, the pedestrian would have been well within their rights to flag him down and give him an earful. All these people that can still find fault with the victim in this scenario would, I’m sure, have far fewer words for a pedestrian berating a cyclist that almost hit them - interesting social experiment you could do there.
As much as I agree that road rage is a bad, bad thing, if you nearly get struck by a vehicle then I think you’re well within your rights to tell them what-for. It certainly doesn’t justify attempted assault.
The diagram certainly wouldn’t have made much sense.