CramCycle A wholly unreasonable man
#181

Jawgap said:


btw if you asked my wife if we should have a minimum passing distance she'd say it was a bad idea on the basis that most male drivers think this represents 6 inches:

<------------------------------------------------------------------------>

They'd never judge a meter-and-a-half


On my phone but it looks right

1 person has thanked this post
Hermy Registered User
#182

Beasty said:
...better enforcement of existing laws as opposed to introducing stricter laws...


Nail on head in my opinion Beasty.

buffalo Registered User
#183

Maybe a few of these at the pinch points:



Seen in Clapham, London (http://realcycling.blogspot.ie/2012/06/pass-notes-cycle-friendly-sign-in.html)

Lumen Registered User
#184

buffalo said:
Maybe a few of these at the pinch points:



Seen in Clapham, London (http://realcycling.blogspot.ie/2012/06/pass-notes-cycle-friendly-sign-in.html)


Lanes can't overtake anyone, they're attached to the road.

Mycroft H Registered User
#185

Lumen said:
Lanes can't overtake anyone, they're attached to the road.


Smart arse, I was just about to post something similar

I think they wouldn't be too bad of an idea, they're not really solving the root of the problem are they?

SerialComplaint Registered User
#186

AltAccount said:
I don't have much of an issue with it.

For the silver taxi, the cyclists were perfectly happy to undertake with that level of room, so it's fairly reasonable that the taxi should feel they can overtake with the same level of room


This is completely flawed logic. Buffalo points out one reason why:

buffalo said:
Note the relative speeds though. When the cyclists undertake, the taxi is barely moving. When he overtakes, he has picked up a fair bit of speed. This makes his manoeuvre more dangerous. Also, taxi drivers are professional drivers too.


But it's not just the matter of relative speed - it is the relative risk. When a car overtakes a cyclist, if something goes wrong, the risk of serious injury to the cyclist is significant. When a cyclist undertakes a car, the risk of serious injury to the car driver is zero, and the risk of serious damage to the car is tiny.

It's not a tit-for-tat situation. When cars are overtaking cyclists, they need to give room.

Some of you have seen my channel in the past; http://www.youtube.com/user/CycleDub

I'm probably a bit more confrontational than Deadly, and a bit more sensationalist, so I'm probably going to get even more shtick. There is a broader objective going on here - I believe that by making drivers aware of the risk that their driving behaviour may be named-and-shamed, then driving habits will improve. Most driving risks are taking by unaccompanied drivers in my experience. Most of us drive better if we have our Mammy or partner or kids keeping an eagle eye on us. By creating a situation where more drivers realise that their driving habits may well be displayed to the world, and in serious cases, handed over to the Gardai, driving habits will improve.

But if any really, really dislikes my channel, there is an easy solution - don't press the Play button.

nomdeboardie Registered User
#187

SerialComplaint said:
This is completely flawed logic. Buffalo points out one reason why:
buffalo said:
... Note the relative speeds though. When the cyclists undertake, the taxi is barely moving. When he overtakes, he has picked up a fair bit of speed. This makes his manoeuvre more dangerous ...

But it's not just the matter of relative speed - it is the relative risk. When a car overtakes a cyclist, if something goes wrong, the risk of serious injury to the cyclist is significant. When a cyclist undertakes a car, the risk of serious injury to the car driver is zero, and the risk of serious damage to the car is tiny.

It's not a tit-for-tat situation. When cars are overtaking cyclists, they need to give room.

+1

Another point is that the cyclist knows exactly how far they are from a car at all times. In contrast, a driver's perspective is a good few feet to the right and occluded by bits of car even before they reach the cyclist. Having said this, I think we need to be very wary passing cars at close quarters in cases where they may be about to move off, acccelerate or change their position in the road in any way (not just turn at a junction).

AltAccount Registered User
#188

I guess it's a matter of perspective then. I'd have been happy for the silver taxi to overtake me in that situation. YMMV.

nomdeboardie Registered User
#189

AltAccount said:
I guess it's a matter of perspective then. I'd have been happy for the silver taxi to overtake me in that situation. YMMV.

I was more adding to the general list of arguments; that taxi overtake might have been OK (hard to tell for sure from a video)

deadlyspot.com Registered User
#190

Should really stop calling this a Close Pass. It is a dangerous overtake and outlined here on the Dublin Cycling Campaign website. How come none of you guys came up with that? :-)

Thanks Dublin Cycling Campaign

http://www.dublincycling.com/node/365

Dermot Illogical Registered User
#191

deadlyspot.com said:
Should really stop calling this a Close Pass. It is a dangerous overtake and outlined here on the Dublin Cycling Campaign website. How come none of you guys came up with that? :-)

Thanks Dublin Cycling Campaign

http://www.dublincycling.com/node/365


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79054355

1 person has thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!