Near Miss of the Day 529: Driver in close pass on country lane (video includes swearing)

MattieKempy wrote:

WTF is it with people that they forget we're mums, dads, sons, brothers, daughters? Why are they so unconcerned about their safety that they think it's OK to drive like this? Where's the protection from the Police? It makes me furious.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Somehow the police, courts, media, politicians have got the opposite impression - that driving is a right, and not a privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand the logic of your "childish game". So when you get a close pass, you punish some other random driver who might not even know the first one and who is staying patiently behind you? How does that help anybody?

I believe the writer would have us understand that childish logic is an oxymoron.

hirsute wrote:

I believe the writer would have us understand that childish logic is an oxymoron.

Logic doesn't have to be sound I suppose. It can be any set of formal reasoning made in relation to predefined axioms. They don't have t be valid I guess......

Captain Badger wrote:

hirsute wrote:

I believe the writer would have us understand that childish logic is an oxymoron.

Logic doesn't have to be sound I suppose. It can be any set of formal reasoning made in relation to predefined axioms. They don't have t be valid I guess......

Exactly.  It doesn't matter whether your axioms are true or not, so long as the correct logical arguments are generated from them.

Like theology, for example... <ducks!>

brooksby wrote:

.......

Exactly.  It doesn't matter whether your axioms are true or not, so long as the correct logical arguments are generated from them.

 

 

Like theology, for example... <ducks!>

Won't be standing near you in a thunder storm....

There is no logic in it. It is a childish game.

Both motorists and cyclists have equal right to use a country lane. There is no legal requirement for the cyclist to get out of the way of the motorist, he probably has enough to do avoiding potholes. If the cyclist was using the road first then he should have priority.

If I pull into a farm gate then I am delaying my journey by a small amount, I will get my wheels and shoes muddy, I may even fall off.

I am being subservient to the motorist, or maybe I'm just being a nice guy.

If ALL cyclists ALways got out of the way of ALL motorists then it would not be long before All motorists believed they had a "right of way" on the roads. If you do not use your rights then you will lose them.

So start my I ride along the country lanes as a nice guy, but if I get aggression I exert my rights. Maybe not totally childish?

Incidentally, has anyone noticed that when you have a slightly impatient driver behind you on a narrow lane, if you  slow down, move into the very centre of the lane, then wave them through as you pull into a farm gate to let them pass, it annoys them even more? They do not like being told what to do by a cyclist.

Sure, you don't have to pull in for any driver and have any right to be on the road, but that's not what I meant.

Or perhaps I totally misunderstand what you're doing.

I understood your game as follows: if driver 1 endangers you, you, in return, try to annoy the next one, i.e. some totally different driver 2. Driver 2 normally is not responsible for what driver 1 has done, so what exactly is the point of that?

Whether you want to let driver 2 pass or not is up to you and the situation, no problem if you can't or don't want to let them pass, but why do you make your choice dependent on what different driver 1 has done to you before?

I'd understand if you're trying to teach the same driver, but why a different one?

How about, "i don't want that to happen again"

"I don't want that to happen again" is your message for driver 1, but he won't ever hear it because he's long gone while you're trying to teach driver 2, who probably knows nothing about what driver 1 did and might have a totally different personality and might be a very careful driver.

I'll try again. "I don't want that to happen to ME again"

You are taking the motorist's point of view, I am taking the cyclist's point of view. Both may be valid, but my safety is paramount (to me) and I am entitled to ride accordingly.

I think it's the same logic that means I get a punishment pass because the driver once saw a cyclist go through a red light. Driver 2 surely understands he is part of a wider community and has to accept punishment for the infractions of other members of that community.

IanMK wrote:

I think it's the same logic that means I get a punishment pass because the driver once saw a cyclist go through a red light.

A lot of the time I suspect it's more like "I get a punishment pass because the driver was told by someone that they once nearly saw a cyclist go through a red light"...

Last weekend I got the finger from a driver. I suspect it was because, going in the opposite direction,  there were 2 cyclists riding abreast and he actually had to slow down to overtake me. Obviously felt that I should be taking more responsibility for members of my community.

There is a huge difference between holding someone up for a few minutes and endangering someone's life.

Having said that I usually wait till I hear the following car slow down and then let them pass at the next opportunity. If its muddy I stay on the road and let them get their car dirty. A short toot to say I'm here is OK but agressive use of the horn gets a different response.

Well, yes, I do something similar (check in the mirror what the driver behind me does and react appropriately), but here you actually communicate with the same driver.

What I don't get in Cycloid's "childish game" is that they are trying to teach a different driver while the original one, the one who endangered them, is long gone.

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Sure, you don't have to pull in for any driver and have any right to be on the road, but that's not what I meant.

Or perhaps I totally misunderstand what you're doing.

I understood your game as follows: if driver 1 endangers you, you, in return, try to annoy the next one, i.e. some totally different driver 2. Driver 2 normally is not responsible for what driver 1 has done, so what exactly is the point of that?

Whether you want to let driver 2 pass or not is up to you and the situation, no problem if you can't or don't want to let them pass, but why do you make your choice dependent on what different driver 1 has done to you before?

I'd understand if you're trying to teach the same driver, but why a different one?

To some extent that makes sense, but peoples reactions are not always logical.

E.g. when cycling on urban roads in traffic I will often take the centre of the lane and hold my place in the queue at lights, however if driver 10 pulls alongside me and herds me to the kerb because they think I am stopping them from making more progress, then I will filter up to the front of the queue. I have clearly been instructed by a driver that I am not part of the traffic and therefore I am not constrained to wait for the traffic. Also pulling away beside a car is less safe. The result is that drivers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are now behind me and possibly inconvenienced, and my own journey is improved. Driver 10 gains nothing of course. 

If I ride reasonably and am treated reasonably by drivers then all good, but if drivers do not treat you reasonably then you have to alter your own behavour for your own protection.

In te OPs case perhaps blockin all drivers because of a single aggresive pass is extreme, but if riding considerately ends wiht more dangerous passes than safe ones, then clearly a different approach is required.

I see what you mean, but I think that is somewhat different as you also send the message to the correct driver (driver 10, the one who bullied you), so they hopefully notice that they didn't gain anything. And in an urban setting the "holding up" part is quite different than on narrow country roads; typically in town some drivers might be annoyed by cyclists in general, but in reality nobody is held up for long by cyclists.

And I would think (hope) that drivers 1 to 9 don't have any problem with you filtering to the front if it is safe, as this is the normal thing to do in a city.

I would agree most think country lanes should be safer than main roads but contrary to popular opinion, it’s not the motorway, main road, or the city centre that is the most dangerous. The most dangerous place to drive ride  cycle is on a country lane or rural road.

The number of people killed on country roads is nearly 11 times higher than on motorways. 60% of all fatalities occur on country roads; that’s an average of three a day. Country roads carry 30% of the cycling traffic but account for 50% of the fatalities.

What makes rural roads so dangerous?

The danger on rural roads is that drivers tend to drive fast on the bits where they can see a good distance and then don't adjust their speed appropriately as they become unsighted corners dips etc. They are lulled into a sense of believing their speed is appropriate right up until they are suddenly confronted with an obstruction or in the worst case the accident.

That doesn't make it right that country lanes should be dangerous in fact we should all do our best to make them safer but every road user should be aware that they are not to be thought of as safe and in fact if we got everyone to think of them as dangerous it would help to make them safer. 

Several other factors. Emergency services are closer on the motorways both in terms of geographically and speed. Therefore victims are more likely to be seen in the golden hour following a crash so chance of survival increases. They are more likely to get to a hospital with the injured party after the crash.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

I've thought that once you drive into the country, you must expect to be inconvenienced by slower 'traffic', be that cyclists, livestock, etc

If you can't accept this, then stay away from these roads. 

Unfortuantely in the eyes of most drivers while it is acceptable to be inconvenienced by horses, tractors, learners, people parking in stupid places, deliveries or crashes caused by stupid driving. It is not acceoptable to be delayed for 30seconds by a cyclist. I honestly don't know why that is, other than persistent media campaigns vilifying lycra louts.

How many times have we recieved abuse because a single driver is behind for 30s? Have you ever seen any abuse for the drivers who caused a crash on the motorway who have delayed tens of thousands of people for half an hour?

Interesting article, could it also argued the other way that motorists are freeloading by travelling with no physical effort at great cost to society? the challenge is how to change the perception of these misguided motorists.

A bit of a flaw in that motorists are unaware of the laws they have to follow or don't care about following them.

Although on a superficial level, insurance does fit the category of free riding .

double posted sorry

I have thought very uncharitable thoughts and may have vocalised them about those who crashed. 

I've had lots of abuse while driving a tractor. A cousin sees how big a queue he can collect, I think he got to 70! I always pull over if I can when I get to 5-10. There is a highway code bit about this rule 169 do not hold up a long queue of traffic especially if you drive a large or slow moving vehicle. Failure to do so can lead to a charge of inconsiderate driving. 

I've not noticed abuse when I've been cycling probably happened but I haven't noticed. Had many close passes but two will live with me forever.