"But I was indicating!"

Squashme wrote:
On 23 Aug, 19:51, JNugent wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:
the correct procedure when being overtaken -
according to the HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back
left in front of you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that
is necessary.
"If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass."
If the cyclist was doing 20mph on the flat (a reasonable assumption)
then a motorist overtaking in the second lane of a dual carriageway
has 10mph speed difference to play with and should have no difficulty
at all in completing the manoeuvre and pulling back into the left lane
safely and without needing the cyclist to slow down. Given which,
"maintain a steady course and speed" is the advice and is what I see
in the clip
Yes - I have already said that I am not seeking to defend the driver.

There's nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at
(female) drivers who overtake instead of slowing down.
There's nothing in the video clip about shouting at drivers of either
sex when they overtake. I hear a short burst of horn when she stops
opposite the turning and it becomes apparent to the cyclist that she
might be about to do something silly, then a rather longer one as
she's actually turning. I don't hear any shouting until she's more or
less finished the turn
But he shouts abuse at her, and it is absolutely unnecessary.

How else is she to learn that her behaviour is unacceptable? A polite
note, a fax?

Actually, that's none of your business, or of his, unless he is a police
officer.

As for the
"short burst of horn" - why not just slow down - and be prepared to stop
if necessary?

I agree. Why did the motorist not slow down or even stop, instead of
manufacturing an unnecessary conflict?

Weak.

I know you can do better. That's primary school level.

Adam Lea wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Squashme wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:
snip
i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet
apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's only
just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.
She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed -
You're not a cyclist are you?
Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's not quite so easy on
a bike.
"Delta V"?
No explanatio of that one. ;-(


Delta V means a change in speed, in this case referring to getting back up
to speed after being forced by the driver to take evasive action.

Ah... the mathematical nomenclature...

Thanks.

Adam Lea wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

the correct procedure when being overtaken -
according to the HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back
left in front of you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that
is necessary.

"If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass."
If the cyclist was doing 20mph on the flat (a reasonable assumption)
then a motorist overtaking in the second lane of a dual carriageway
has 10mph speed difference to play with and should have no difficulty
at all in completing the manoeuvre and pulling back into the left lane
safely and without needing the cyclist to slow down. Given which,
"maintain a steady course and speed" is the advice and is what I see
in the clip

Yes - I have already said that I am not seeking to defend the driver.

There's nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at
(female) drivers who overtake instead of slowing down.

There's nothing in the video clip about shouting at drivers of either
sex when they overtake. I hear a short burst of horn when she stops
opposite the turning and it becomes apparent to the cyclist that she
might be about to do something silly, then a rather longer one as
she's actually turning. I don't hear any shouting until she's more or
less finished the turn

But he shouts abuse at her, and it is absolutely unnecessary.

This bit I would agree with.

As for the "short burst of horn" - why not just slow down - and be
prepared to stop if necessary?

Because it appears that the driver had forgotten that the cyclist was still
there, so the horn served as a warning to the driver that he was there,
which is what the horn is intended for.

That doesn't answer the question (see below).

He could (and I would say should) just have stopped - by far the better
and safer response.

HC rule 112:

"The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other
road users of your presence."

That doesn't mean it's always right to use it rather then to do
something else that's more effective (like stop). In particular, the
horn should not be used in an attempt to operate someone else's brakes
(that's the reference from above).

which is what the cyclist needed to do in this instance.

No.

What he (or anyone else in the same situation) needs to do is avoid a
collision (whether he thinks the collision would be his fault or not).
The brakes are best for that.


Other People [TM] will always make mistakes. Sometimes, they'll try to
take liberties. That does not entitle anyone else to try to outrun them.

Marc wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Squashme wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:

snip

i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet
apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's
only just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.

She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed -

You're not a cyclist are you?
Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's not quite so
easy on
a bike.

"Delta V"?

Change of velocity

Thanks.

It's obvious now it's explained. I feel embarrassed not having seen it.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:43:53 +0100, Marc
wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Squashme wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:

snip

i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet
apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's only
just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.

She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed -

You're not a cyclist are you?
Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's not quite so easy on
a bike.

"Delta V"?

Change of velocity


It would of course have been too easy for you to use the term
"braking" - you spotted an opportunity to confirm that you were a
knob.

Thanks Round.

--

if you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:58:54 +0100, JNugent wrote:

snip


What he (or anyone else in the same situation) needs to do is avoid a
collision (whether he thinks the collision would be his fault or not).
The brakes are best for that.


Yes - but if the cyclist had slowed down or stopped there would have
been no opportunity for the conflict.
If you go out every day with your arse on the ground filming your
journey, then you are probably hoping for incidents so that you can
"prove" it was the motorist's fault.

There's someone else who has posted footage of his journey's here - I
honestly thought he was compiling a catalogue of appalling actions by
cyclists as he seemed to capture same on each of his videos!!


--

if you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)

On Aug 23, 8:51*pm, JNugent wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:
the correct procedure when being overtaken -
according to the HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back
left in front of you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that
is necessary.
"If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass."
If the cyclist was doing 20mph on the flat (a reasonable assumption)
then a motorist overtaking in the second lane of a dual carriageway
has 10mph speed difference to play with and should have no difficulty
at all in completing the manoeuvre and pulling back into the left lane
safely and without needing the cyclist to slow down. *Given which,
"maintain a steady course and speed" is the advice and is what I see
in the clip

Yes - I have already said that I am not seeking to defend the driver.

Urm... why would that be?


There's nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at
(female) drivers who overtake instead of slowing down.
There's nothing in the video clip about shouting at drivers of either
sex when they overtake. *I hear a short burst of horn when she stops
opposite the turning and it becomes apparent to the cyclist that she
might be about to do something silly, then a rather longer one as
she's actually turning. *I don't hear any shouting until she's more or
less finished the turn

But he shouts abuse at her, and it is absolutely unnecessary.

Completely pointless in in terms of impacting on the drivers driving.
After all, if the tooting had no impact on her driving, what would the
far less audible shout do?

However, "unnecessary" is subjective.
Are you saying he had no right to vent given that he cut up by such a
plonker?
Do you never vent? Anywhere, anytime, for any reason?


As for the
"short burst of horn" - why not just slow down - and be prepared to stop
if necessary?

I'm inclined to agree with that. Taking the steps to ensure my own
safety _independently_ of the driver would have been my first
priority. In other words, I would be expending my energies into
evasive maneuvers, i.e. slowing down, preparing to stop/continue...
controlling my personal situation, not wasting seconds trying to
control someone else.

judith wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:43:53 +0100, Marc
wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Squashme wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:
snip
i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet
apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's only
just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.
She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed -
You're not a cyclist are you?
Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's not quite so easy on
a bike.
"Delta V"?
Change of velocity


It would of course have been too easy for you to use the term
"braking" -

There would have been two changes of velocity needed to maintain the
status quo, it was easier to express that as delta V ( 7 keystrokes)
than "braking and then again accelerating afterwards" (over 6 times as
many).
You aren't worth too many more keystrokes.

The very fact that you thought of the potential manovuere as simply
braking, without thinking of the subsequent energy expenditure required
in the other part of the equation shows that, you are not a cyclist,
and understand nothing about cycling.

Thanks for the opportunity, again.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:26:21 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:43:53 +0100, Marc
wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Squashme wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:
snip
i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet
apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's only
just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.
She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed -
You're not a cyclist are you?
Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's not quite so easy on
a bike.
"Delta V"?
Change of velocity


It would of course have been too easy for you to use the term
"braking" -

There would have been two changes of velocity needed to maintain the
status quo, it was easier to express that as delta V ( 7 keystrokes)
than "braking and then again accelerating afterwards" (over 6 times as
many).
You aren't worth too many more keystrokes.

The very fact that you thought of the potential manovuere as simply
braking, without thinking of the subsequent energy expenditure required
in the other part of the equation shows that, you are not a cyclist,
and understand nothing about cycling.

Thanks for the opportunity, again.

Now then Round - don't get your knickers in a twist.

So when you said: "Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's
not quite so easy on a bike."


You actually meant to say : "Changing velocity is easy in a car, just
press a pedal, perhaps change the direction of travel, and then press
the pedal (or is that two pedals?) again".

Alternatively - you think you are a smart arse.

--

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

aquachimp wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

the correct procedure when being overtaken -
according to the HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back
left in front of you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that
is necessary.

"If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass."
If the cyclist was doing 20mph on the flat (a reasonable assumption)
then a motorist overtaking in the second lane of a dual carriageway
has 10mph speed difference to play with and should have no difficulty
at all in completing the manoeuvre and pulling back into the left lane
safely and without needing the cyclist to slow down. Given which,
"maintain a steady course and speed" is the advice and is what I see
in the clip

Yes - I have already said that I am not seeking to defend the driver.

Urm... why would that be?

Because I don't want to?

There's nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at
(female) drivers who overtake instead of slowing down.

There's nothing in the video clip about shouting at drivers of either
sex when they overtake. I hear a short burst of horn when she stops
opposite the turning and it becomes apparent to the cyclist that she
might be about to do something silly, then a rather longer one as
she's actually turning. I don't hear any shouting until she's more or
less finished the turn

But he shouts abuse at her, and it is absolutely unnecessary.

Completely pointless in in terms of impacting on the drivers driving.

Completely pointless[full stop]

Measured on any reasonable scale of pointlessness, that is.

After all, if the tooting had no impact on her driving, what would the
far less audible shout do?

She heard the blast on the horn, judging from the fact that there
appears to be a reaction to it, contrary to what you say.

However, "unnecessary" is subjective.
Are you saying he had no right to vent given that he cut up by such a
plonker?

He is making a potentially big mistake in screaming abuse at people out
on the road (unless he chooses the screamees very carefully - which may
well be his practice).

Do you never vent? Anywhere, anytime, for any reason?

Not in public, no.

On the road, my first priority is to avoid collisions. Isn't it yours?

[See below - we agree that it is.]

As for the
"short burst of horn" - why not just slow down - and be prepared to stop
if necessary?

I'm inclined to agree with that. Taking the steps to ensure my own
safety _independently_ of the driver would have been my first
priority.

Absolutely. Mine also.

In other words, I would be expending my energies into
evasive maneuvers, i.e. slowing down, preparing to stop/continue...
controlling my personal situation, not wasting seconds trying to
control someone else.

See? We are in agreement.