Near Misses Thread Volume 2 (So close you can feel it)

You could conceivably do both things. Take primary position until there was the opportunity to allow the faster traffic past

I never said anything of the sort. What I said was you made a false equivalency between cycling on a road where traffic can legally drive at 80kph, and cycling in heavy urban traffic.

Given that city driving is slower, stop start in nature, and involves junctions, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings etc., the speed differential between cycling and driving is vastly reduced from what it would be in a national road.

As a result, in heavy urban traffic, I wouldn't expect either cyclists or drivers to pull over to let other traffic past.

On faster national roads, I will pull over, if I can and it's safe, and allow faster traffic to overtake me. I'd expect someone driving, say, a tractor, to do the same thing.

Have you any other strawmen or red herrings to throw in, or would you like to have a proper grown up conversation

Correct. I offered my opinion on the circumstance that was being discussed. That being, if I, or anyone else, is moving substantially slower than the traffic behind them, then it would seem like common courtesy to move over and let them pass.

The important part here is the substantial difference in speed. This is why I said you were making a false equivalency in your original post. The relative speeds of both cyclists and drivers in the sort of traffic you posited is close enough that there's no real need for either of them to move out of the other's way.

It's possible for fast moving traffic to be substantially slowed by a cyclist.

It's much less likely that fast moving cyclists will be held up by a single slow moving car. It's much more likely that cyclists will be held up by heavy traffic, i.e. lots of slow moving cars

Can I assume from your last post that you're not going to actually address any of the point I made in my post?

The top car in the queue did that when I cycled up during the week. Light goes green off they go. The pedestrian already starting to cross has to stop. I was going to say something to the second in line (also going left) about bloody cyclists going through red but declined.

These days anyone half decent with a computer and the right software can easily manipulate a video and present it out of context. I'd imagine that's why AGS generally seeks source footage from a sequence of recordings directly from a camera.

Well...no.

The point being that if you're going to tender video footage to back up an argument there's a reasonable expectation that the Garda can establish that it's unmodified and 'authentic' - no?

Otherwise you could invent a narrative to match a piece of doctored footage in the hope that it would be self-corroborating.

And, yes, stranger things have happened, and happen, quite frequently!

Since when is a statement evidence of anything (in any walk of life)?

Ah sorry, so we're in court now. Prior to court it's just an allegation, correct? And obviously an eye witness account is something other than your own, because, hey-ho, we all have agendas, right?

Not worth the floppy it was written on. 🤣