Nuxx:4e345ad2$0$2499$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e345ad2$0$2499$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Bexley driver "'severely embarrassed' after attack. Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 20:26:09 +0100 References:  <998b11F9raU1@mid.individual.net>  <4e334b24$0$2491$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>  <4e34118d$0$2502$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>  <99j2saFnufU2@mid.individual.net> Lines: 76 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <99j2saFnufU2@mid.individual.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 561070b4.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=Q@Hj\7;XTge On 30/07/2011 15:31, Simon Mason wrote: >> >> "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message >> news:4e34118d$0$2502$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk... >>> On 30/07/2011 14:01, Simon Mason wrote: >>>> >>>> "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message >>>> news:4e334b24$0$2491$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk... >>>>> >>>> >>>>> If it's done as a genuine, necessary effort to prevent someone from >>>>> knocking you off or squashing you then that's one thing. Of course >>>>> your >>>>> self-preservation is more important than any vehicle. >>>> >>>> >>>> What is your opinion of this photo, Nuxxy? >>>> >>>> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/overtaking.jpg >>> >>> There's no real need to give cyclists that much room, and you and others >>> are perfectly aware of that. >> >> One wonders why it is shown as an example in the Highway Code then. > > Because the compilers think that everyone is as impressionable (and > apparently innumerate) as you? > > That's if you *really* believe that such a clearance would be given when > overtaking a car (physical impossibility - without driving on the > opposite footway).

Yes, quite. The wording is surely ambiguous: "Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car". Which of the following does that mean?

1) Leave as much space between the nearside extent of your car and the offside extent of vulnerable road users as you would between the nearside extent of your car and the offside extent of another car.

2) Pretend that the vulnerable road user is as big as a car whose nearside extent is the same as the nearside extent of the vulnerable road user, then give them as much room as you would the car.

3) As 2, but pretend that the vulnerable road user is half as wide as a car instead.

4) Something else.

The room given in the photo is more than 1) would suggest, less than 2) would suggest, and about the same as 3) would suggest, but the wording certainly doesn't unambiguously indicate 3) (or anything else in particular).

But what is certain is that even the most wobbly cyclist doesn't need to be given as much room as in the photo. A cyclist who habitually vandalises any car which gets closer than the photo indicates (assuming they can even reach) is eventually going to get a beating, and that's understandable at least. Hating cars is no excuse to go round damaging them...if everyone vandalised everything they disliked then we'd be in a sorry state, cash cameras excepted.

Can anyone even link to a video or report of a collision which was caused by a driver getting "too close" (but not actually driving into the cyclist)? Or is this just another "dangerous" thing drivers do which actually causes few if any collisions in itself, like "speeding"? Is this just another case of car-haters like Chapman deliberately and dishonestly exaggerating the danger caused by common driver behaviours in order to call for unjustified, punitive restrictions which actually have nothing to do with safety?

And let's remind ourselves of what is, always, the most "important" thing of all: that photo is only advisory, and so according to "the law" you don't have to leave that much room (whereas "the law" certainly doesn't sanction vandalism, even of horrid, freedom-giving cars!)