Near Miss of the Day 652: Driver overtaking group ride almost causes head-on crash (includes swearing)

wtjs wrote:

Sadly, I have to report that it wasn't a BMW, but one of these Audi type mega-Jag tanks. Even more sadly, I didn't come across him a few yards later completely immobilised by a vehicle coming the other way, a subject for ribald mockery. He was lucky.

On a recent jaunt up the spine of the country to nail a few more munroes, a ridiculowagen of that sort pressed hard on our tail, expressing his displeasure that we had dealt a salutory gesture towards the speed limit as we passed vehicles in adjacent lanes.

Onwards, he sped, clearly yelling something incoherent at the peasants as he went by.  It took us a few minutes to pass him as he sat on the hard shoulder, kicking something that had broken.

I wasn't on a bike at the time.

GMBasix wrote:

Onwards, he sped, clearly yelling something incoherent at the peasants as he went by.  It took us a few minutes to pass him as he sat on the hard shoulder, kicking something that had broken.

A bit OT, but that's something that always concerns me.  If my bike breaks, I can probably fix it with the contents of my bag and if I can't then I can probably walk it home.

If a car breaks down (my car never has, touch wood!) then you are utterly dependent on the AA (other car repair services are available) - you're unlikely to be able to fix it yourself at the roadside (even my car!) and you certainly can't push it home...

There is no pushing the car to the nearest train station for taking it back home to fixing, or if in really desperate straights, making that emergency call and putting it the back of someone's car (or even a taxi, and even once for me, a black cab)

Probably posting stupid things to instigate some ageist comments that Nige, Boo, TTDanger and other alter egos can then jump on.

Define 'big', as the Mr Spencer didn't.

When councils rip up the road network to link together suitable roads and remove blind bends you might have a point.

As to group riding, I've never had a serious actual accident in a group, but riding alone, for example every time I go to the start or from the finish I can guarantee that a driver will put me at risk.

I'll settle for annoying a few motorists for my safety for a few seconds over permanent disability.

On a similar theme, why shouldn't motorists be obliged to drive vehicles suitable for the roads they travel on? Why is an OAP going down a country lane to an NT property causing havoc acceptable use of the roads when a group of 8 cyclists is to be complained at?

Tried and tested? These are routes our club has developed over decades. We've been group riding these roads for more than 80 years.

Nigel Garage wrote:

The elephant in the room is that these cyclists aren't riding for any utilitarian reason. They aren't riding to get from A to B, to get to work, visit family, or drop the kids off at school. They are riding in a group to socially engage with each other.

So their ride serves no practical purpose. They don't "need" to use that road, but are choosing to do so, putting their own decadent pleasure over the community. This contrasts with the example you give of the elderly person (which seemed a pretty ageist thing to write to be honest) who needs to use a particular road to get to a specific destination.

Did I miss a memo somewhere?  I never saw in the HC that you can only use the roads for a 'practical purpose'.

brooksby wrote:

Did I miss a memo somewhere?  I never saw in the HC that you can only use the roads for a 'practical purpose'.

It happened during lockdown - you can only use the roads for purposes such as driving to somewhere that you can walk your dog or going to Barnards Castle so that you can check your eyesight.

Half of journeys are for leisure and shopping - just think - we can eradicate congestion overnight !

Nigel Garage wrote:

The elephant in the room is that these cyclists aren't riding for any utilitarian reason. They aren't riding to get from A to B, to get to work, visit family, or drop the kids off at school. They are riding in a group to socially engage with each other.

So their ride serves no practical purpose. They don't "need" to use that road, but are choosing to do so, putting their own decadent pleasure over the community. This contrasts with the example you give of the elderly person (which seemed a pretty ageist thing to write to be honest) who needs to use a particular road to get to a specific destination.

Multiple Bingo! Your first fallacies are:

"cycling is not serious transportation"

"journeys in vehicles are all necessary (and / or utilitarian)"

Apologies - they haven't got a category up for that yet but I will forward your thoughts on and maybe we can them added!

"elderly people can't cycle and need cars" (I know you didn't write exactly that but logically you'd probably have to also bar all the drivers here unless they could prove they were elderly, wouldn't you?)

That one's there: https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/5/elderly-people-cant-cycle

To be kind (or unkind? I'm not versed in S&M so you'll have to forgive me...) the point you're asking to be abused on really is "How do we divide up our possible space for travel? What's the best way to most widely and equitably manage the right of / share the benefits of mobility"?

Relevant helpful articles:

https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/walking-and-cycling-should-become-the-norm-for-short-journeys

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/health-and-cycling

Slightly on the side but it fits the "everyone else can double-up but not cyclists because they're just doing it socially" subtext: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2016/08/mass-cycling-requires-sociable-side-by.html

Nigel Garage wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

"cycling is not serious transportation"

Straw man, I said this particular outing was without a practical reason.

No, you didn't. That might be what you meant, but you said, "these cyclists aren't riding for any utilitarian reason" - "these" could refer to the specific article, or to a broader sense emerging in the subsequent discussion; "aren't"... given the incident is ctegorically in the past, it somewhat implies a continuous sense of non-utility cycling. It's not a straw man, it's a reasonable extrapolation of the argument that was reasonably inferred from your statement.

Nigel Garage wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

"journeys in vehicles are all necessary (and / or utilitarian)"

Straw man, I didn't mention whether journeys by other form of transport are necessary or unnecessary.

For the record, other forms of transport also have similar antisocial behaviour which serves no purpose.

He's not quoting you, he's quoting the general myth under which your comments stumble.  Cycling for fitness or social pleasure is not antisocial. You misunderstand the purpose of roads and the nature of a right of way - the right to pass and repass as of right (not purpose).

Nigel Garage wrote:

It's also false to call these kind of group rides "journeys", as a journey has to start in one place and end in another. A journey can't start at point A and finish at point A.

That is your personal definition and, by no mild coincidence, utter nonsense. In Highways terms, any excursion by foot or vehicle would be counted as a journey. 

Nigel Garage wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

"elderly people can't cycle and need cars"

Straw man, I didn't write that.

No.  You wrote, "This contrasts with the example you give of the elderly person (which seemed a pretty ageist thing to write to be honest) who needs to use a particular road to get to a specific destination.", which again separates and seeks to justify validation of some road users over others by the purpose of their journey.  The myth is well-described and calls out your false assumptions and assertions.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Your entire post falls on your lack of understanding of the word "journey", a basic word my son learned in Year 1 at school. A journey has to have a mutually exclusive start and destination.

Oh dear. So, last Saturday I went to see the All Blacks play Wales in Cardiff, then I came back to London. Did I not make a journey because I ended up back in my own home? Ah, says you, you made two journeys, one to Cardiff and one back again. Fine, so let us assume these cyclists had a cafe stop at some point in their ride, they made a journey to the cafe, then they made a journey back home. Now stop your nonsense please, it really is indicative of your paucity of argument that you are reduced such petty semantic quibbling.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

Your entire post falls on your lack of understanding of the word "journey", a basic word my son learned in Year 1 at school. A journey has to have a mutually exclusive start and destination.

Oh dear. So, last Saturday I went to see the All Blacks play Wales in Cardiff, then I came back to London. Did I not make a journey because I ended up back in my own home? Ah, says you, you made two journeys, one to Cardiff and one back again. Fine, so let us assume these cyclists had a cafe stop at some point in their ride, they made a journey to the cafe, then they made a journey back home. Now stop your nonsense please, it really is indicative of your paucity of argument that you are reduced such petty semantic quibbling.

Under Nigel's new concept of "necessary journey" that serves "a practical purpose" that wouldn't count. I think he's preparing for even more stringent regulations than the main covid lockdown...

Nigel Garage wrote:

Your entire post falls on your lack of understanding of the word "journey", a basic word my son learned in Year 1 at school. A journey has to have a mutually exclusive start and destination.

No it doesn't; and no, it doesn't. You've selected a sample of dictionaries, none of which represents technical analysis of highway usage, and all of which are reflective of general usage, not prescriptive.

From the government web site, "a ‘journey’ represents travel between adjacent junctions on the network". Journeys represent usage of the highway network, and, for the purposes of the discussion, it is perfectly reasonable to use the word 'journey'.

If it helps ease the constraints of your technical knowledge, we could use 'trip', 'excursion', 'outing' or anything, so long as it does not premise an exclusion of a particular cycling activity - which would be a circular argument and, therefore, by your own definition, invalid.

Nigel Garage wrote:

I'm sure you're getting the idea now. This group of cyclists didn't partake in a journey as they didn't arrive at a place different to where they started.

How would you know?  Or is this an inadvertant, dispirited reflection on the fact that your son has overtaken your own lack of progress in self analysis.

Sounds like we'll need to update our collective wisdom:

"A journey of a thousand miles begins and ends in two different places"

It also sounds like it's not possible to "ride to the ride" - you would need to take another mode of transport at two points or not return home else it would cancel itself out.

Again though let's not lose sight of the point - (apart from getting a reaction of course...): a group of cyclists wearing lycra are

(a) obviously cycling recreationally "to socially engage with each other"

(b) this "serves no practical purpose"

(c) ...compared to a selection of purposes of "get from A to B, to get to work, visit family, or drop the kids off at school." (What happened to ambulances - they used to be popular victims?)

(d) This therefore detracts from whatever "practical purpose" "journeys" are serving (with a "because not in a car" unstated but intended) because this is prioritizing "decadent pleasure over the community" (which community?)

(e) And something about getting in the way / taking resources from old people (not sure about that bit...)?

At least Nigel recognises "decadent pleasure" as an attraction of cycling! The devil got all the best tunes!

Also we're back to classic "Creationist argument" style:

1) State something - I have merely stated the truth, my opponent must justify his quibbles.

2) State something inexactly and/or with internal contradictions then claim that any response your opponent makes didn't understand what you said and therefore is attacking a straw man.

3) Fall back on arguments about side issues e.g. the definition of a journey.

Can we remember that before Nigel distracted the thread that we had a perfectly lawful activity, cycling in group, going about their lawful business within the highway code.  Then an idiot in a motorcar put their safety at request through his negligence.

The rest is just distraction from the unacceptably poor driving.

Yup. That.

We should have warnings before such a brutal dissection of a comment - I've never seen so much blood!

hawkinspeter wrote:

We should have warnings before such a brutal dissection of a comment - I've never seen so much blood!

I don't "do" Halloween; but sometimes one just has to get gory.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Straw man

I didn't mention men, or straw, ergo your argument is refuted! If you are unhappy with this "logic" then I'm happy to resume in the universe of logic as it normally works as long as you are...

Nigel Garage wrote:

The only people around here I ever have trouble with are groups of cyclists covering the entire width of the road, coming in the opposite direction around blind corners.

Since you've mentioned your speed on the bike before maybe you are just too fast approaching these blind corners? A careful cyclists might scrub off a bit of speed just in case - after all there could be a car overtaking a tractor on the other side. (Edit - or Dr. Helen Measures)

It does sound like a nice part of the country to be cycling round if there are so many in these cycling groups that they fill the entire road. Or is the Essex Critical mass movement taking over the countryside too?

Tractor driver overtakes cyclist on blind right hand bend.

Kills cyclist

Slap on wrist

https://road.cc/content/news/240901-tractor-driver-who-killed-cyclist-du...

Nigel Garage wrote:

The elephant in the room is that these cyclists aren't riding for any utilitarian reason. They aren't riding to get from A to B, to get to work, visit family, or drop the kids off at school. They are riding in a group to socially engage with each other.

So its ok to drive in order to socially interact with others? but do it on a bike and thats wrong? 

If the cyclists stop at a cafe for lunch before returning does that make a difference? If not can we exclude any journey where a motorist drives to a pub or cafe for lunch and then drives home again?

As I cyclists I have never ridden on the wrong side of the road around a blind corner, where have you seen this? I would that that such cyclists would quickly be removed from society. Or do you say road when you actually mean lane, in fact a group of cyclists taking up the same space as a single person in their car.

Nigel Garage wrote:

I don't understand how this point is so hard for you all to grasp.

It's not hard to grasp; it's just bollocks - and you know it is.

Nigel Garage wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

The elephant in the room is that these cyclists aren't riding for any utilitarian reason. They aren't riding to get from A to B, to get to work, visit family, or drop the kids off at school. They are riding in a group to socially engage with each other.

So its ok to drive in order to socially interact with others? but do it on a bike and thats wrong? 

If the cyclists stop at a cafe for lunch before returning does that make a difference? If not can we exclude any journey where a motorist drives to a pub or cafe for lunch and then drives home again?

As I cyclists I have never ridden on the wrong side of the road around a blind corner, where have you seen this? I would that that such cyclists would quickly be removed from society. Or do you say road when you actually mean lane, in fact a group of cyclists taking up the same space as a single person in their car.

I don't understand how this point is so hard for you all to grasp. This group of cyclists aren't riding to somewhere (i.e. making a journey) in order to socially interact with others. The ride itself is the social interaction, therefore they are not making a journey.

Sounds more efficient than making two separate journeys to do that (there and back). Very efficient. What's not to like?

Nigel Garage wrote:

I have nothing against that in principle, after all it's probably good for mental health. However, if you choose to do this on a busy minor road, putting yourself and others in danger, there's a negative societal cost attached to it, as well to the cyclists themselves.

You won't because it doesn't but your challenge would be to explain the "putting others in danger" bit. A common trope, I know. The clearest I've ever seen that explained always comes down to something like "forcing drivers to overtake dangerously" which would be hilarious if it weren't sometimes accepted at face value in courts.

Cost? What cost? Only one I can see is if "society" consists of yourself and a couple of others on here and no-one else, and the negative is "causes us to take to the internet / local talking shop and bore on about it".

Nigel Garage wrote:

I have nothing against that in principle, after all it's probably good for mental health. However, if you choose to do this on a busy minor road, putting yourself and others in danger, there's a negative societal cost attached to it, as well to the cyclists themselves.

Isn't the problem there, that such a minor road is so busy?