taking the lane

Leads to trouble, strange how compo cam owners attract trouble, then
back down and cower behind a camera and reporting it to the Police, who
have said they will will take no action (probably ****ed themselves
laughing)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iss-crash.html

On 09/07/2014 22:41, Mrcheerful wrote:

Leads to trouble, strange how compo cam owners attract trouble, then
back down and cower behind a camera and reporting it to the Police, who
have said they will will take no action (probably ****ed themselves
laughing)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iss-crash.html

Cyclist totally in the wrong - a liuitle knowledge is truly a dangerous
thing.

There was plenty of room for both to get through (approx clear width of
18') and no need whatsoever to expect either road-user to (have to)
stop. It might even have been possible for two *cars* to pass without
danger.

It would have been different if the idiot on the bike had been an idiot
in a lorry. But he wasn't an idiot in a lorry - he was just an idiot on
a bike with a grossly over-inflated idea of his own rights and importance.

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 17:35:20 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:



There was plenty of room for both to get through (approx clear width of
18')

How did you make this measurement?

Since you are so keen to see road users fined when they are 'bang to rights'
I assume you think the driver should be prosecuted under the road vehicle
construction and use regulations.

On 11/07/2014 20:35, Simon Jester wrote:

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 17:35:20 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There was plenty of room for both to get through (approx clear width of
18')

How did you make this measurement?

By subtracting the width of a typical parked car from the typical width
of a two-lane carriageway. Are you not familiar with that sort of
measurement?

Let's say five feet for the parked car and twenty-four feet for the
carriageway. Take one from the other and you have nineteen feet. Call
that eighteen feet to be on the safe side.

Two cars can easily pass each other in opposite directions within an
overall width of eighteen feet (or even less - sixteen is plenty), let
alone a bicycle and a car. Although there can be obvious difficulties
with larger and heavier vehicles, car drivers make that mutual
adjustment all the time, automatically allowing for restriction with a
perceived realignment of the effective centre line. IOW, they share the
road and assist each other without having to consider it all that deeply.

The cyclist could *easily* have done the same, given his own much
smaller width requirement. Do you think he saw it as somehow funny to
hog the (actual) centre line (thereby hogging the entire available width
of the road) instead of making an obvious allowance for the obstruction
on the other side of the carriageway like a qualified road-user would
have done in those circumstances?

Since you are so keen to see road users fined when they are 'bang to rights'
I assume you think the driver should be prosecuted under the road vehicle
construction and use regulations.

Please explain which of them you "think" was breached.

Here's the index page:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/contents/made

On Friday, 11 July 2014 21:13:33 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

By subtracting the width of a typical parked car from the typical width
of a two-lane carriageway.

Are all two lane carriageways the same width?
The wide angle lens clearly distorts dimensions.

Please explain which of them you "think" was breached.
Here's the index page:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/contents/made

106

On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:41:51 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Leads to trouble, strange how compo cam owners attract trouble, then
back down and cower behind a camera and reporting it to the Police, who
have said they will will take no action (probably ****ed themselves
laughing)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iss-crash.html

A "near miss" where no one needed to brake or take any avoiding
action isn't really a near miss.

Did the motorist reverse because

a) He wanted to kill the cyclists but missed first time ?

b) Mr Compo-cam picked a fight by giving him the finger ?


Thankfully Mr Thomas Bardon, 23, of Harrogate, North Yorkshire is now
recorded on google forever as a cowardly ****-wit

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:35:02 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 17:35:20 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:



There was plenty of room for both to get through (approx clear width of
18')

How did you make this measurement?

Since you are so keen to see road users fined when they are 'bang to rights'
I assume you think the driver should be prosecuted under the road vehicle
construction and use regulations.

If I was on a motorbike I wouldn't of considered this excessively
close. But on the other hand if I'd been on a motorbike I'd have seen
the car approaching and moved over to the left automaticaly and the
entire thing would have been a non-event

On 11/07/2014 22:45, Simon Jester wrote:

On Friday, 11 July 2014 21:13:33 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

By subtracting the width of a typical parked car from the typical width
of a two-lane carriageway.

Are all two lane carriageways the same width?

Not exactly the same, but it's a reasonable estimate based upon UK
road-building and maintenance standards. Two lane roads are not usually
either unduly narrow or unduly wide. The topical width between kerbs is
22' to 24'.

This exchange, of course, is almost pointless: you have removed far too
much context. Do you not know the difference between usenet and email?

The wide angle lens clearly distorts dimensions.

Some. But that hardly matters since the estimate is based on observed
generality and experience.

Now...

You alleged that the driver who overtook a parked car "broke a
Construction & Use regulation".

I asked:

Please explain which of them you "think" was breached.
Here's the index page:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/contents/made

You say: "106"

C&U Reg 106 is about unnecessary reversing.

Are you usally regarded as alright in the head?

On 12/07/2014 12:04, Cassandra wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:35:02 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 17:35:20 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:



There was plenty of room for both to get through (approx clear width of
18')

How did you make this measurement?

Since you are so keen to see road users fined when they are 'bang to rights'
I assume you think the driver should be prosecuted under the road vehicle
construction and use regulations.

If I was on a motorbike I wouldn't of considered this excessively
close. But on the other hand if I'd been on a motorbike I'd have seen
the car approaching and moved over to the left automaticaly and the
entire thing would have been a non-event

Indeed.

Even another car-driver would have moved left and made room for the
vehicle coming the other way. We all do it every day.

On Saturday, 12 July 2014 17:04:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


Not exactly the same, but it's a reasonable estimate based upon UK
road-building and maintenance standards. Two lane roads are not usually
either unduly narrow or unduly wide. The topical width between kerbs is
22' to 24'.


So you do not know how wide the road is question is


This exchange, of course, is almost pointless: you have removed far too
much context. Do you not know the difference between usenet and email

Obviously not.
I am an electronics engineer who has somehow ended up as a lab manager in an
environmental science research facility. Please explain the difference and bear in
mind that ignorance on a particular subject does not make a person stupid.



The wide angle lens clearly distorts dimensions.



Some. But that hardly matters since the estimate is based on observed
generality and experience.



My real world experience that an extremely close pass by a motor vehicle
on a cyclists looks ok when the footage is viewed on a pc.


You say: "106"
C&U Reg 106 is about unnecessary reversing.


Was the reversing in this case necessary?


Are you usally regarded as alright in the head?

No.