A miss is as good as a mile

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/nis...cyclist/020846

On 05/03/17 20:30, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/nis...k-cyclist/0208

We don't get a good enough view to properly judge. But we can see the
car did not start close then brake and cut further in when only half way
past.

I don't see it as a significant problem. Analyse it, solve it and apply.
It's much easier to roll out updates to computers than to humans.

On 06/03/2017 14:02, TMS320 wrote:

On 05/03/17 20:30, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/nis...k-cyclist/0208


We don't get a good enough view to properly judge. But we can see the
car did not start close then brake and cut further in when only half way
past.

I don't see it as a significant problem. Analyse it, solve it and apply.
It's much easier to roll out updates to computers than to humans.

Quite.

QUOTE:
Rule 163 of the Highway Code states that motorists should give cyclists
(and pedestrians and equestrians) as much space as they would give a
motor vehicle when overtaking.
ENDQUOTE

And as has been pointed out here too many times to have been forgotten,
the HC "rules" are not law. The word "should" is to be distinguished
from "must" (which references legislation) wheras "should" is mere
hopeful piety.

And anyway, in the (complete) absence of law on what the "space" for a
motor vehicle must be, that comparison-based "rule" is pointless.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 06/03/17 14:13, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 14:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/03/17 20:30, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/nis...k-cyclist/0208

We don't get a good enough view to properly judge. But we can see the
car did not start close then brake and cut further in when only half way
past.

I don't see it as a significant problem. Analyse it, solve it and apply.
It's much easier to roll out updates to computers than to humans.

Quite.

What are you agreeing to?

a) The first sentence.
b) The whole paragraph.

QUOTE:
Rule 163 of the Highway Code states that motorists should give cyclists
(and pedestrians and equestrians) as much space as they would give a
motor vehicle when overtaking.
ENDQUOTE

And as has been pointed out here too many times to have been forgotten,
the HC "rules" are not law. The word "should" is to be distinguished
from "must" (which references legislation) wheras "should" is mere
hopeful piety.

And anyway, in the (complete) absence of law on what the "space" for a
motor vehicle must be, that comparison-based "rule" is pointless.

Much of the Highway Code is about guidance and development of the craft,
not just a set of rules to refer to on every yard of your journey. If
you want to be objective about it, the only true definition of a
suitable gap is what *most* people naturally do *most* of the time,
something that could be identified by measuring large numbers and
performing statistical analysis.

On 06/03/2017 16:49, TMS320 wrote:

On 06/03/17 14:13, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 14:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/03/17 20:30, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/nis...k-cyclist/0208

We don't get a good enough view to properly judge. But we can see the
car did not start close then brake and cut further in when only half way
past.

I don't see it as a significant problem. Analyse it, solve it and apply.
It's much easier to roll out updates to computers than to humans.

Quite.

What are you agreeing to?

a) The first sentence.
b) The whole paragraph.

Neither. The whole post goes generally in the ight direction.

QUOTE:
Rule 163 of the Highway Code states that motorists should give cyclists
(and pedestrians and equestrians) as much space as they would give a
motor vehicle when overtaking.
ENDQUOTE

And as has been pointed out here too many times to have been forgotten,
the HC "rules" are not law. The word "should" is to be distinguished
from "must" (which references legislation) wheras "should" is mere
hopeful piety.

And anyway, in the (complete) absence of law on what the "space" for a
motor vehicle must be, that comparison-based "rule" is pointless.

Much of the Highway Code is about guidance and development of the craft,
not just a set of rules to refer to on every yard of your journey. If
you want to be objective about it, the only true definition of a
suitable gap is what *most* people naturally do *most* of the time,
something that could be identified by measuring large numbers and
performing statistical analysis.

Are you sure that would suit your purposes?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 06/03/17 17:49, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 16:49, TMS320 wrote:

On 06/03/17 14:13, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 14:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/03/17 20:30, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/nis...k-cyclist/0208


We don't get a good enough view to properly judge. But we can see the
car did not start close then brake and cut further in when only half
way
past.

I don't see it as a significant problem. Analyse it, solve it and
apply.
It's much easier to roll out updates to computers than to humans.

Quite.

What are you agreeing to?

a) The first sentence.
b) The whole paragraph.

Neither. The whole post goes generally in the ight direction.

QUOTE:
Rule 163 of the Highway Code states that motorists should give cyclists
(and pedestrians and equestrians) as much space as they would give a
motor vehicle when overtaking.
ENDQUOTE

And as has been pointed out here too many times to have been forgotten,
the HC "rules" are not law. The word "should" is to be distinguished
from "must" (which references legislation) wheras "should" is mere
hopeful piety.

And anyway, in the (complete) absence of law on what the "space" for a
motor vehicle must be, that comparison-based "rule" is pointless.

Much of the Highway Code is about guidance and development of the craft,
not just a set of rules to refer to on every yard of your journey. If
you want to be objective about it, the only true definition of a
suitable gap is what *most* people naturally do *most* of the time,
something that could be identified by measuring large numbers and
performing statistical analysis.

Are you sure that would suit your purposes?

Obviously. What is in the back of your mind?

On 06/03/2017 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/03/17 17:49, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 16:49, TMS320 wrote:

On 06/03/17 14:13, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 14:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/03/17 20:30, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/nis...k-cyclist/0208



We don't get a good enough view to properly judge. But we can see the
car did not start close then brake and cut further in when only half
way
past.

I don't see it as a significant problem. Analyse it, solve it and
apply.
It's much easier to roll out updates to computers than to humans.

Quite.

What are you agreeing to?

a) The first sentence.
b) The whole paragraph.

Neither. The whole post goes generally in the ight direction.

QUOTE:
Rule 163 of the Highway Code states that motorists should give cyclists
(and pedestrians and equestrians) as much space as they would give a
motor vehicle when overtaking.
ENDQUOTE

And as has been pointed out here too many times to have been forgotten,
the HC "rules" are not law. The word "should" is to be distinguished
from "must" (which references legislation) wheras "should" is mere
hopeful piety.

And anyway, in the (complete) absence of law on what the "space" for a
motor vehicle must be, that comparison-based "rule" is pointless.

Much of the Highway Code is about guidance and development of the craft,
not just a set of rules to refer to on every yard of your journey. If
you want to be objective about it, the only true definition of a
suitable gap is what *most* people naturally do *most* of the time,
something that could be identified by measuring large numbers and
performing statistical analysis.

Are you sure that would suit your purposes?

Obviously. What is in the back of your mind?

My understanding would have been that you believed that drivers
generally passed too close to cyclists.

But if the acceptable distance measured as the statistical mode,
clearly, my belief would have been wrong, and you actually don't mind
how close drivers pass cyclists as long as in any particular case, it it
isn't too different from the average.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 07/03/17 00:10, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 19:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/03/17 17:49, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 16:49, TMS320 wrote:

On 06/03/17 14:13, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2017 14:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/03/17 20:30, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/nis...k-cyclist/0208




We don't get a good enough view to properly judge. But we can see the
car did not start close then brake and cut further in when only half
way
past.

I don't see it as a significant problem. Analyse it, solve it and
apply.
It's much easier to roll out updates to computers than to humans.

Quite.

What are you agreeing to?

a) The first sentence.
b) The whole paragraph.

Neither. The whole post goes generally in the ight direction.

QUOTE:
Rule 163 of the Highway Code states that motorists should give
cyclists
(and pedestrians and equestrians) as much space as they would give a
motor vehicle when overtaking.
ENDQUOTE

And as has been pointed out here too many times to have been
forgotten,
the HC "rules" are not law. The word "should" is to be distinguished
from "must" (which references legislation) wheras "should" is mere
hopeful piety.

And anyway, in the (complete) absence of law on what the "space" for a
motor vehicle must be, that comparison-based "rule" is pointless.

Much of the Highway Code is about guidance and development of the
craft,
not just a set of rules to refer to on every yard of your journey. If
you want to be objective about it, the only true definition of a
suitable gap is what *most* people naturally do *most* of the time,
something that could be identified by measuring large numbers and
performing statistical analysis.

Are you sure that would suit your purposes?

Obviously. What is in the back of your mind?

My understanding would have been that you believed that drivers
generally passed too close to cyclists.

I ride a bicycle so the significant word is 'experience', not 'belief'.
They don't pass too close, in general.

But if the acceptable distance measured as the statistical mode,
clearly, my belief would have been wrong, and you actually don't mind
how close drivers pass cyclists as long as in any particular case, it it
isn't too different from the average.

I do mind when someone passes closer than I would expect most drivers to
do in similar circumstances.