Where's the pineapple? Mathieu van der Poel offends Italy AGAIN; 117mph driver "will need a bicycle"; Steep cobbled climbs: Yorkshire is the new Flanders; LEJOG with a difference; Giro rest day; Bollards!; Weekend round-up + more on the live blog

Yep, they're "too hard to see " and when asked why, it's because cyclists are small,  obviously. 

Not "very far away"?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Not "very far away"?

both in the case of his learner who didn't see a flashing light from 400m away, when the dash cam certainly could....

Thought he wasn't doing one as Youtube seems to be targeting dash cam channels now unless they "transform" them. 

But on the video, very interesting with the person crossing the side road. Driver and passenger having ago at the child, then the comments stating variations of "new rules" when they are not new.

Drivers' entitlement has reached new heights.  Soon they'll be demanding that pedestrians throw themselves in the hedge as a car approaches so that they don't have to slow down.

Thought that was what the farmer was demanding the other day. 

I need to get better at not reacting to certain drivers tbh. I was on the home stretch of an audax on Saturday and had a horrendously close pass by a driver (entering the Midlands from Warwickshire is always easy to tell -  the standard of driving just Dips). I raised an arm angrily and bosh! He brakes, screams at my companion and I that we are 'riding side by side.' I then made the additional mistake of telling him to get stuffed, at which point he overtook us, pulled over and nearly knocked us both off when he got out of the car for a confrontation.

Some people are just evil, and they may be wrong, but I'd rather be alive.

I do raise my arm after a close pass but only because others on here suggested that it helps stop the next car following the same line. For you, the fact that the driver was watching in the mirror means he did it on purpose.

The main thing I have picked up from here is to keep your distance, so if they stop up ahead, have a shouting match from 20 or 30m away or just wait quietly until they go.

hirsute wrote:

Still can't work out what the driver would have said to us. Maybe mdavidford can come up with a pithy sentence !

"You can pith right off!"?

[OK - it's not very good, but I'm not a performing monkey, you know.]

I'll pass on the tomato sauce and the bacon, thanks.

In fact, I'd be happier with the pineapple in my roll.

I do have to wonderr WTAF that truck driver thought they were doing...

With all the genuinely wonderful food Italy does have to offer, I have no idea why everyone focusses on what is essentially cheese on toast.

How dare you dismiss the national dish of Wales like that!

There's no toast involved in a pizza. Toast entails double-cooking - the initial bake, and then a subsequent grilling. Pizza only has a single bake. An open sandwich would be a closer comparison than cheese on toast.

mdavidford wrote:

There's no toast involved in a pizza. Toast entails double-cooking - the initial bake, and then a subsequent grilling. Pizza only has a single bake. An open sandwich would be a closer comparison than cheese on toast.

That would imply that the thousands, nay, millions, of pizzas made on pre-baked bases are not pizzas. Don't get me wrong; I make mine the proper way (although the breadmaker gets the kneading job; why have a dog and bark?)

The Mary Whitehouse Experience (for those old enough to remember) defined pizza as "posh cheese on toast" so that's a good basis for the description

Karlt][quote=mdavidford wrote:

That would imply that the thousands, nay, millions, of pizzas made on pre-baked bases are not pizzas.

Yes. And?

Although I believe those are classed as 'part-baked' - so technically they're only being baked once - just with a very long pause in the middle.

He's edged into some questionable comments before so this wouldn't entirely surprise me.  Will watch the vid though to see.

EDIT video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0FhYn2SmA

It all starts well enough.  His beef eventually comes down to 1) "he's picking sides" (e.g. ignores the cyclists doing something wrong) and 2) "it's just confrontational and won't make roads safer - rather the reverse".  He's correct on the first as far as I know (I'm not a watcher of Cycling Mikey outside of road.cc).  I'd say that's irrelevant though given that CM isn't the police.  For the second he seems rather to undercut his own argument by saying that Mikey is too niche for drivers to get educated by (rather than... Ashley Neal) but at the same time is inspiring "legions" of cyclists to go forth and antagonise drivers.  They should just be passing the footage to the police. (Ashley Neal says "I've never reported anyone for anything" at 2:57 - so I think we know where he's coming from).  But then... how would that educate anybody?

His summary - "he creates many of these road rage incidents all of his own accord".  So again the focus here is on "making people angry" not "safety" even though he continually says that safety is his main concern.  This isn't an uncommon viewpoint and obviously there is some truth (angry people don't follow rules and make very bad choices).  Also as an instructor he can only address the people / training side and not infra / laws so much.  Overall it's a category mistake though.  If your "safety" system relies on perfect human behaviour it's failed before you started.

He also picks an example of a cyclist failing at the new highway code guidance e.g. turning into a side road when a pedestrian is crossing (4:40).  It's not quite clear from the footage that this is exactly as he says it is.  However just before this he states that because of low speeds at this location neither nor cars and bikes going the wrong way are a big deal.  (e.g. they present similar and small risks to others).  In this case because a car is wider than a bike the pedestrian would have to stop to be safe if a car had turned in to the side road.  However with a narrower cycle if the pedestrian was slightly ahead of the cyclist they could just keep walking and the cyclist would safely pass clear behind.  (This is common in the Netherlands).  So again failure to spot that car is not equal to bike.

On his charge of "double standards" he himself has plenty form on the "cyclists could do better even though it's not breaking the law" line e.g.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA-WdjQ6bfc

chrisonatrike wrote:

He also picks an example of a cyclist failing at the new highway code guidance e.g. turning into a side road when a pedestrian is crossing (4:40).

As I understand it, cyclists do not have to stop to give priority to peds crossing roads. 9 times out of 10, it's easy enough to either go behind or sufficiently far in front of a ped so that you can both progress without the ped feeling endangered (other times, just stop and wave them across).