Driver Cyclist arguement with a brilliant ending NSFW or kids

WillyFXP

Wright wrote: »

Look at the wing mirror and stop being willyfully thick.

fyp

The wing mirror in relation to what?

Wright

WillyFXP wrote: »

fyp

The wing mirror in relation to what?

The cyclist, you muppet.

Do you know what thread you're in?

Eamonnator

I enjoyed this thread.

WillyFXP

Wright wrote: »

The cyclist, you muppet.

Do you know what thread you're in?

I cant see any cyclist in that photo, so I cant tell where he is in relation to the mirror. Talking of muppets, if you'd actually read all of my posts in the thread you may have picked up that I was making the point that there is NO WAY to tell how close the car was to the cyclist, all of my additional posts in answer to others have been pure sarcasm, which some people fail to see......

Wright

WillyFXP wrote: »

I cant see any cyclist in that photo, so I cant tell where he is in relation to the mirror. Talking of muppets, if you'd actually read all of my posts in the thread you may have picked up that I was making the point that there is NO WAY to tell how close the car was to the cyclist, all of my additional posts in answer to others have been pure sarcasm, which some people fail to see......

Oh I see it... I just wonder why you've nothing better to do on a bank holiday than goad people who are actually trying to have a discussion.

Sad.

RainyDay

Shane Fitz wrote: »

There is no reason why 2 civilised adults behaving civilly toward each other can't have an adult discussion..... You really need that spelled out for you? ?

I don't want to go round in circles, but didn't you suggest earlier today that I had to explain to you why it was appropriate for one adult to talk to another adult in such circumstances?

Shane Fitz wrote: »

We aren't discussing any adult, we're discussing this particular video

Indeed, and again, I haven't heard any reason why the cyclist should have a civil discussion with the person who just put their safety at risk through dangerous driving.

Shane Fitz wrote: »

I'm pretty sure, as are you, that the cyclist did pursue the motorist for the sole purpose of expressing himself.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not telepathic, so who knows/

WillyFXP wrote: »

Of course I can see the difference between the two photos, one clearly shows the cyclist in relation to the car, one shows the side of a car giving no reference to it's position in relation to the cyclist, simples.

I thought it was fairly obvious, but perhaps I need to spell it out. The photo of the incident was taken by a camera attached to the bike, so it shows the distance between the bike/camera and the car. And it shows that it is nothing like the distance required by the Highway Code.

WillyFXP

Wright wrote: »

Oh I see it... I just wonder why you've nothing better to do on a bank holiday than goad people who are actually trying to have a discussion.

Sad.

Your "discussion" consists of calling people "thick" and "muppet". If you feel goaded by my simple statement of facts, I apologise deeply (but dont really mean it).

WillyFXP

RainyDay wrote: »

it shows the distance between the bike/camera and the car.

No, it doesn't.

RainyDay

WillyFXP wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

That's kinda how cameras work.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't want to go round in circles, but didn't you suggest earlier today that I had to explain to you why it was appropriate for one adult to talk to another adult in such circumstances?

Indeed, and again, I haven't heard any reason why the cyclist should have a civil discussion with the person who just put their safety at risk through dangerous driving.


Maybe, maybe not. I'm not telepathic, so who knows/

I thought it was fairly obvious, but perhaps I need to spell it out. The photo of the incident was taken by a camera attached to the bike, so it shows the distance between the bike/camera and the car. And it shows that it is nothing like the distance required by the Highway Code.

2 wrongs dont make a right.
going by your posts you ARE telepathic.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

2 wrongs dont make a right.

I really don't understand your point. What is this in response to?

Darkglasses

Ok, this thread is circling the drain and I'm not interested in cleaning it up indefinitely. Drop the bickering or I'm locking this one up.

Wright

WillyFXP wrote: »

Your "discussion" consists of calling people "thick" and "muppet". If you feel goaded by my simple statement of facts, I apologise deeply (but dont really mean it).

You're getting the order of cause and effect mixed up. My argument is that they're both in the wrong but the driver acted on his prejudices.

Then you come along "wha driver I don't see him" "what cyclist I don't see him" "wha wing mirror I don't see it"; because again, you've nothing better to do with your bank holiday than irritate people having a discussion.

Again; SAD.

WillyFXP

Wright wrote: »

You're getting the order of cause and effect mixed up. My argument is that they're both in the wrong but the driver acted on his prejudices.

Then you come along "wha driver I don't see him" "what cyclist I don't see him" "wha wing mirror I don't see it"; because again, you've nothing better to do with your bank holiday than irritate people having a discussion.

Again; SAD.

Go you!

Darkglasses

Wright wrote: »

you've nothing better to do with your bank holiday than irritate people having a discussion.

Again; SAD.

See warning above. Stay out of this thread now, thank you.

Darkglasses

WillyFXP wrote: »

Go you!

See warning above. Stay out of this thread now, thank you.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

I really don't understand your point. What is this in response to?

Have you never heard that saying.
If the cyclist felt he was wronged in some way, let him go to the proper authorities, not chase after the car and put other road users in danger by his distracting of a quite obvious mentally unwell motorist.
the cyclist one day will chase the wrong car.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Bro, if you continue to harp on I may just call you a lyre.

Bravo. Take a "bow".

(I wish I'd posted that about ten hours and three pages ago.)

KingBrian2

That video is despicable both sides played their part in aggravating the situation.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

If the cyclist felt he was wronged in some way, let him go to the proper authorities

For the 5th time, the UK police and the Gardai would do absolutely nothing about a close pass like this.

QuinDixie wrote: »

put other road users in danger by his distracting of a quite obvious mentally unwell motorist.

There is no sign of any issue with the driver's mental health. He's just a bigoted Daily Mail reading dick. But regardless, it's difficult to expect a cyclist or anyone to do a mental health assessment of someone on the street.

QuinDixie wrote: »

the cyclist one day will chase the wrong car.

Funny how the warnings are always for the cyclist. Maybe one day the driver will close-pass the wrong cyclist?

John_Rambo

QuinDixie wrote: »

A foot is 12 inches. 12 inches is 30.48 cm. How is that unreasonable on a narrow road. Its about perspective and having some.
Its about looking outwards and not constantly looking inwards.

Back off. Wait for when it's suitable to overtake. Just like you would for livestock, pedestrians, tractors and slow drivers. A trained emergency response driver wouldn't risk it, why should you?

If you overtook a cyclist on a narrow road with 12 inches to spare you'd fail your driving test.

Anyone that things 12 inches is enough room for overtaking needs to sit their driving test again. Unseasoned drivers that believe this is enough room need to be educated.

StevieGriff

John_Rambo wrote: »

Back off. Wait for when it's suitable to overtake. Just like you would for livestock, pedestrians, tractors and slow drivers. A trained emergency response driver wouldn't risk it, why should you?

If you overtook a cyclist on a narrow road with 12 inches to spare you'd fail your driving test.

Anyone that things 12 inches is enough room for overtaking needs to sit their driving test again. Unseasoned drivers that believe this is enough room need to be educated.

No. Anyone who thinks 12 inches is enough room for an overtake needs to experience how frightening it is for that to happen at speed.
In regards to the video, watched it without audio but it was fairly stupid for the cyclist to follow the car, that's just asking for trouble.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

For the 5th time, the UK police and the Gardai would do absolutely nothing about a close pass like this.


There is no sign of any issue with the driver's mental health. He's just a bigoted Daily Mail reading dick. But regardless, it's difficult to expect a cyclist or anyone to do a mental health assessment of someone on the street.

Funny how the warnings are always for the cyclist. Maybe one day the driver will close-pass the wrong cyclist?

The motorist has serious anger issues, his rage is a sure sign of some mental problem.

The cyclist in fairness is not far behind him, a persecution complex at min.

Yet you take the cyclists side - interesting.

QuinDixie

John_Rambo wrote: »

Back off. Wait for when it's suitable to overtake. Just like you would for livestock, pedestrians, tractors and slow drivers. A trained emergency response driver wouldn't risk it, why should you?

If you overtook a cyclist on a narrow road with 12 inches to spare you'd fail your driving test.

Anyone that things 12 inches is enough room for overtaking needs to sit their driving test again. Unseasoned drivers that believe this is enough room need to be educated.

where I live the country roads very narrow, do you wish for me to never overtake a cyclist or a pedestrian.

If I met a cyclist anywhere, I would go into a low gear but overtake and sometimes you could not leave more than 1 foot. But I do it in the right speed and so its not an issue.

Too many excitable road users out there, dont be one.

John_Rambo

QuinDixie wrote: »

where I live the country roads very narrow, do you wish for me to never overtake a cyclist or a pedestrian.

No. Just wait for a suitable overtaking area. Leave lots of room and drive responsibly.

Too many excitable road users out there, dont be one. Take it easy, you're not in that much of a rush.

QuinDixie

John_Rambo wrote: »

No. Just wait for a suitable overtaking area. Leave lots of room and drive responsibly.

Too many excitable road users out there, dont be one. Take it easy, you're not in that much of a rush.

is this what feels to be re-tweeted.

Cycling Dubliner

IMO they are both toss-pots. Cyclist kept winding up the driver when he could have left it be and very nearly got what he deserved.

But I won't lie in saying that I laughed when the driver face planted the road.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

The motorist has serious anger issues, his rage is a sure sign of some mental problem.

Is everyone with rage now considered to have a 'mental problem'? The Courts are full of people who have shown similar 'rage', but I don't think they all get away with playing the 'mental problem' card.

The guy has rage mainly because (similar to a few posters here on the thread), he can't comprehend the possibility that a cyclist could correct a driver on his driving. He rattles out all the old Daily Mail cliches about the size of the bike and insurance, which have no relevance to the issue at all. When he realizes that the cyclist has him on camera, so he's going either get reported to the cops or get made a dick of online, he makes a fairly calculated decision that it is in his best interests to get the camera back.

QuinDixie wrote: »

The cyclist in fairness is not far behind him, a persecution complex at min.

It's a fairly typical tactic in bullying cases to blame the bully for having the temerity to stand up for themselves. They were provoking them, they were asking for it, combined with thinly veiled threats of or exhortations to violence on the thread;

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Nearly knocked a person crossing the road when chasing the car, a good thumping is what he would want, knock the smart Alec out of him.

and

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe some ol' fashioned lovin' called for here..........though whether the GoPro camera would be the right shape for the kind of lovin' needed is a whole other question. :eek:

It's not a persecution complex. It is persecution, based on his choice of mode of transport.

QuinDixie wrote: »

Yet you take the cyclists side - interesting.

The cyclist did nothing wrong. The driver threatened his safety, then threatened to kill him, then attempted to assault him and steal his property.

And you don't take his side?

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

where I live the country roads very narrow, do you wish for me to never overtake a cyclist or a pedestrian.

What do you do when you come across a tractor on these very narrow country roads?

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

What do you do when you come across a tractor on these very narrow country roads?

the dubs eh. A dub once asked me when do you milk the bull. :pac:

the cyclist in that video would not want to come to Ireland on a cycling hol.
He would have a mental breakdown somewhere between tipp and kerry, last seen shouting out number plates.

As for the motorist, as punishment for his behaviour he should be made go on the aforementioned hols with the cyclist.

What a TV show that would make.
Ciao.

John_Rambo

QuinDixie wrote: »

is this what feels to be re-tweeted.

Ha! I guess so! But seriously, I'm more of a motorist than a cyclist, have had plenty of hot-hatches, GTi's, GTV's and a John Cooper car. I've done track days in my cars! I currently drive a 240bhp barge.

The cyclist may be a douche bag, but it's worth hanging back, waiting for a suitable pass point. The last thing you want is an injury or worse. Let them at it! It's not worth the risk.

QuinDixie

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ha! I guess so! But seriously, I'm more of a motorist than a cyclist, have had plenty of hot-hatches, GTi's, GTV's and a John Cooper car. I've done track days in my cars! I currently drive a 240bhp barge.

The cyclist may be a douche bag, but it's worth hanging back, waiting for a suitable pass point. The last thing you want is an injury or worse. Let them at it! It's not worth the risk.

I agree, no one wants to hurt anyone. I rarely go over 60 on a motorway.
I prefer cruising in a car. Sometimes, VERY RARELY, when overtaking a cyclist you might come within a foot from wing mirror to handle bar.
Thats not a problem if done at the right speed, Very Slowly.

StevieGriff

QuinDixie wrote: »

I agree, no one wants to hurt anyone. I rarely go over 60 on a motorway.
I prefer cruising in a car. Sometimes, VERY RARELY, when overtaking a cyclist you might come within a foot from wing mirror to handle bar.
Thats not a problem if done at the right speed, Very Slowly.

Yes it is. 12inches in nothing. One gust of wind, piece of debris, pothole...ect and all of a sudden that gap becomes 0 and me or some other cyclist is on the ground or under your wheels. Any sideswipe or rear impact at any speed is 90% guaranteed to bring a cyclist down.

QuinDixie

StevieGriff wrote: »

Yes it is. 12inches in nothing. One gust of wind, piece of debris, pothole...ect and all of a sudden that gap becomes 0 and me or some other cyclist is on the ground or under your wheels. Any sideswipe or rear impact at any speed is 90% guaranteed to bring a cyclist down.

no matter what answer is given on this subject, it will be incorrect to certain peeps here.
I was at the ras last sat., saw loads of bicycles zipping through traffic and even some cyclists holding onto cars.

1 foot my eye. :pac:

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

Sometimes, VERY RARELY, when overtaking a cyclist you might come within a foot from wing mirror to handle bar.
Thats not a problem if done at the right speed, Very Slowly.

It is crap driving. As others have pointed out, it would be a definite fail in a driving test. In general, overtakes are better done swiftly, not slowly. Get out, and get back in quickly.

What kind of circumstances would justify this crap driving?

QuinDixie wrote: »

the dubs eh. A dub once asked me when do you milk the bull. :pac:

the cyclist in that video would not want to come to Ireland on a cycling hol.
He would have a mental breakdown somewhere between tipp and kerry, last seen shouting out number plates.

As for the motorist, as punishment for his behaviour he should be made go on the aforementioned hols with the cyclist.

What a TV show that would make.
Ciao.

All very interesting, but would you like to answer the question that I asked? How do you deal with a slow-moving tractor on these narrow roads where it is not possible to overtake a cyclist leaving more than a foot of passing space?

JBokeh

I don't mind a close pass on a country road, chances are the car is in 1st and doing the same speed as me,I just move into a field entrance, someones driveway or into the edge of the road for a bit. I've been doing it for years and have never been hit. I also very much doubt it's going to be an insta-kill making contact with a car at those speeds. I'm just out for a spin on the bike in the evening, and I don't see why my evening arse around should hold someone up because i'm too proud to move in or slow a bit. Chances are they'd be local to me anyway and i'd be seen as a bit of a pariah if I went at that lark

Tractors will always move in bar 2 exceptions
1 - They're not going far up the road
2 - They can tell you're from Dublin, sitting in your fancy clean car giving out about farmers :pac:

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

It is crap driving. As others have pointed out, it would be a definite fail in a driving test. In general, overtakes are better done swiftly, not slowly. Get out, and get back in quickly.

What kind of circumstances would justify this crap driving?



All very interesting, but would you like to answer the question that I asked? How do you deal with a slow-moving tractor on these narrow roads where it is not possible to overtake a cyclist leaving more than a foot of passing space?

you are arguing for the sake of it, all your answers you seek are on google maps. Have some fun zooming in on rural Ireland checking out the road network.

Be careful out there, cycle responsibly, we have enough aggressive and volatile road users out there. Dont be one.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

you are arguing for the sake of it, all your answers you seek are on google maps. Have some fun zooming in on rural Ireland checking out the road network.

No answer to my question, then? There are very, very few situations where there isn't room to pass a cyclist safely leaving a decent 1.5m passing space. If you find yourself in that situation, be patient - wait until you have a safe place to pass.

QuinDixie wrote: »

Be careful out there, cycle responsibly, we have enough aggressive and volatile road users out there. Dont be one.

Yes, those aggressive and volatile road users who think that it is OK to pass a cyclist leaving about 1/3rd of the required (UK) or recommended (Irl) passing space. Don't be that guy.

QuinDixie wrote: »

I was at the ras last sat., saw loads of bicycles zipping through traffic and even some cyclists holding onto cars.

1 foot my eye. :pac:

You do understand that a cyclist passing a car and a car overtaking a cyclist are very, very different manoevres. It's not a tit-for-tat situation - he passed me like that, so I'm gonna pass him like that. You need to make judgments on the safety of each overtake. If you're passing cyclists with just a foot of passing space, you're making bad judgments.

JBokeh wrote: »

I don't mind a close pass on a country road, chances are the car is in 1st and doing the same speed as me,I just move into a field entrance, someones driveway or into the edge of the road for a bit. I've been doing it for years and have never been hit. I also very much doubt it's going to be an insta-kill making contact with a car at those speeds. I'm just out for a spin on the bike in the evening, and I don't see why my evening arse around should hold someone up because i'm too proud to move in or slow a bit. Chances are they'd be local to me anyway and i'd be seen as a bit of a pariah if I went at that lark

Are you talking about slowing down, or stopping? If you choose to stop, that's your own choice - but it's not one that I'm going to make. I don't see many drivers stopping to let me pass in heavy urban traffic where the bike is generally faster than the car, so I'm not minded to return the favour.

If you're talking about slowing, the problem is that once you move into the edge, you've nowhere else to go if anything goes wrong. If an oncoming car suddenly appears round the bend, there is a good chance that the driver will squeeze you out rather than risking a scratch on their own wing mirror. A cyclist was killed in NZ a year or two back in a situation like this.

John_Rambo wrote: »

The cyclist may be a douche bag, but it's worth hanging back, waiting for a suitable pass point. The last thing you want is an injury or worse. Let them at it! It's not worth the risk.

Is every driver who fails to pull over and let me, the cyclist, through in heavy urban traffic a douche-bag too?
Stop the Douchebags;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNDbo2ghEwo

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

No answer to my question, then? There are very, very few situations where there isn't room to pass a cyclist safely leaving a decent 1.5m passing space. If you find yourself in that situation, be patient - wait until you have a safe place to pass.

Yes, those aggressive and volatile road users who think that it is OK to pass a cyclist leaving about 1/3rd of the required (UK) or recommended (Irl) passing space. Don't be that guy.




You do understand that a cyclist passing a car and a car overtaking a cyclist are very, very different manoevres. It's not a tit-for-tat situation - he passed me like that, so I'm gonna pass him like that. You need to make judgments on the safety of each overtake. If you're passing cyclists with just a foot of passing space, you're making bad judgments.


Are you talking about slowing down, or stopping? If you choose to stop, that's your own choice - but it's not one that I'm going to make. I don't see many drivers stopping to let me pass in heavy urban traffic where the bike is generally faster than the car, so I'm not minded to return the favour.

If you're talking about slowing, the problem is that once you move into the edge, you've nowhere else to go if anything goes wrong. If an oncoming car suddenly appears round the bend, there is a good chance that the driver will squeeze you out rather than risking a scratch on their own wing mirror. A cyclist was killed in NZ a year or two back in a situation like this.


Is every driver who fails to pull over and let me, the cyclist, through in heavy urban traffic a douche-bag too?
Stop the Douchebags;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNDbo2ghEwo

I like your standard system, Double.:pac:

You seem to have very little understanding of measurements.
1.5 metres = 1.5 metres
car width = 1.5 metres
rural narrow road width = 3 metres
Factor in overgrown hedges.
Cyclists must be especially careful on rural roads especially with traffic moving in same direction.

there is no point getting hurt to prove a point, be careful out there.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

I like your standard system, Double.:pac:

Are you seriously suggesting that 'tit-for-tat' is an appropropriate method for planning your road movements safely?

QuinDixie wrote: »

You seem to have very little understanding of measurements.
1.5 metres = 1.5 metres
car width = 1.5 metres
rural narrow road width = 3 metres
Factor in overgrown hedges.

It's hard to take advice on measurements seriously from somebody who thinks it is safe to overtake a cyclist leaving 12 inches of passing space. But yes, I understand road widths and car widths thanks - none of which justifies a dangerous overtake.

It's slightly difficult to have a constructive discussion when every time you're questioned, you move on to another red herring.

QuinDixie wrote: »

there is no point getting hurt to prove a point, be careful out there.

And in the light of all this, you still think it is OK to pass a cyclist leaving 12 inches of passing space? You need to take a cold hard look at your driving style before you hurt somebody badly.

See you on the road.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that 'tit-for-tat' is an appropropriate method for planning your road movements safely?


It's hard to take advice on measurements seriously from somebody who thinks it is safe to overtake a cyclist leaving 12 inches of passing space. But yes, I understand road widths and car widths thanks - none of which justifies a dangerous overtake.

It's slightly difficult to have a constructive discussion when every time you're questioned, you move on to another red herring.



And in the light of all this, you still think it is OK to pass a cyclist leaving 12 inches of passing space? You need to take a cold hard look at your driving style before you hurt somebody badly.

See you on the road.

Your posts are the reason why cyclists will eventually be regulated, no understanding of bicycle vs car. only 1 winner.

Hypothetically, If I drove past you out cycling and did not leave 1.5 metres what would you do.
Do you record your cycles and also chase after motorists who have come within 1.5 metres of you.
How do you gauge 1.5 metres when out cycling.
you dont seem to understand what a foot is, but maybe your more metric, a foot is just under 1500cm.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

Your posts are the reason why cyclists will eventually be regulated, no understanding of bicycle vs car. only 1 winner.

Hypothetically, If I drove past you out cycling and did not leave 1.5 metres what would you do.
Do you record your cycles and also chase after motorists who have come within 1.5 metres of you.
How do you gauge 1.5 metres when out cycling.
you dont seem to understand what a foot is, but maybe your more metric, a foot is just under 1500cm.

Cyclists have always been regulated, and continue to be regulated. I've no idea about winners, but I can see who are the losers easily enough - the 200 people each year killed by motorists, and the many others maimed.

Unfortunately, I don't have the 1.5m measurement shown in the photo, so I tend to use my arm. If you come within arm's reach, you are about 1/2 the distance that you should be. My response will of course vary with the circumstances, the speed, the closeness, the weather, my mood etc.

But that question was just a distraction, right? An attempt to distract attention from your continued proposal to pass cyclists leaving less than 1/3 of the space that you should be leaving them. And for what? So you can get to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds earlier?

John_Rambo

QuinDixie wrote: »

you dont seem to understand what a foot is, but maybe your more metric, a foot is just under 1500cm.

QuinDixie

John_Rambo wrote: »

a big foot:pac:

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

Cyclists have always been regulated, and continue to be regulated. I've no idea about winners, but I can see who are the losers easily enough - the 200 people each year killed by motorists, and the many others maimed.

Unfortunately, I don't have the 1.5m measurement shown in the photo, so I tend to use my arm. If you come within arm's reach, you are about 1/2 the distance that you should be. My response will of course vary with the circumstances, the speed, the closeness, the weather, my mood etc.

But that question was just a distraction, right? An attempt to distract attention from your continued proposal to pass cyclists leaving less than 1/3 of the space that you should be leaving them. And for what? So you can get to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds earlier?

the number of cyclists killed in Ireland every year is very small.
All 200 deaths on the road, if your correct, are very sad, but in a pop. of 5 million are a very small number.
Factor in very poor public transport in the sticks, practically making motoring mandatory, and that number is remarkable, its so low.

An arms length, you must have some long arms to be 750cm from handlebar to fingers. So we can say 1 foot and a half is your real threshold.
So a half foot over mine, not arguing over spilt milk.

Tenzor07

This is what we didn't see in the original video edit!

ezra_pound

T-K-O wrote: »

Sure..

That vdeo doesn't do anything for cyclists.

As stated previously my girlfriend cycles and it's a constant worry, this guy and this video doesn't help matters

So would you overtake your girlfriend at that distance and at that speed?

John_Rambo

QuinDixie wrote: »

An arms length, you must have some long arms to be 750cm from handlebar to fingers. So we can say 1 foot and a half is your real threshold.
So a half foot over mine, not arguing over spilt milk.

Half of 1.5 metres is 75cm. Not 750cm. 750cm is 7.5 metres.

You're not helping yourself here.

ezra_pound

QuinDixie wrote: »

the number of cyclists killed in Ireland every year is very small.
All 200 deaths on the road, if your correct, are very sad, but in a pop. of 5 million are a very small number.
Factor in very poor public transport in the sticks, practically making motoring mandatory, and that number is remarkable, its so low.

An arms length, you must have some long arms to be 750cm from handlebar to fingers. So we can say 1 foot and a half is your real threshold.
So a half foot over mine, not arguing over spilt milk.

Then why do the RSA say 1.5 metre ~ 5 feet
Either you drive safely or you shouldn't be behind the wheel.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

the number of cyclists killed in Ireland every year is very small.
All 200 deaths on the road, if your correct, are very sad, but in a pop. of 5 million are a very small number.
Factor in very poor public transport in the sticks, practically making motoring mandatory, and that number is remarkable, its so low.

The number of deaths is fairly comparable, though the RSA has expressed concern about the number of cycling injuries. But very few of those incidents are inevitable. They are a result of crap driving, like the "1 foot is enough" approach that you're recommending.

QuinDixie wrote: »

An arms length, you must have some long arms to be 750cm from handlebar to fingers. So we can say 1 foot and a half is your real threshold.
So a half foot over mine, not arguing over spilt milk.

I'm surprised that I have to spell it out, but here you go. The corollory of comment that I know a car is way too close if it is within reach does not hold. This does not mean that every overtake than I can't reach is safe - far from it.