Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.

How do you know?

Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?

He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample
of such situations.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Not by any stretch.

Really? Whyever not?

Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers'
hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so?

Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic accident.
I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic accident. Then I must
suppose that people don't die in road traffic accidents.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.

Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between
vehicles as speed rises.

Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking
about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg,
30 mph or less).

Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough
letters
for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of
needing alphabetti spaghetti.

Stop wriggling: it's undignified.

Stop changing things. You're your own worst enemy.

Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...".

That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a
magic number where laws of physics change?

Do you think that roads do that on their own?

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?

What does that have to do with the topic?

Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are
always
whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them,
but pass parked cars much closer than that."

I had *definitely* noticed that and fully agree with the implicit
sentiment.

It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty
meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing
when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it?

You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic". Totally different
things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will remain
stationary long enough to complete the overtake.

Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a
car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why
it is
reasonable.

You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on
supposed safety and caution grounds.

Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies
according to curcumstances.

Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and
caution?

So yet again you change the subject.

On 22/05/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.

How do you know?

Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?

He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample
of such situations.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Not by any stretch.

Really? Whyever not?
Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers'
hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so?

Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic accident.
I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic accident. Then I must
suppose that people don't die in road traffic accidents.

That is by no stretch of the imagination (even yours) an equivalent,
whether anecdotal or not.

You are well aware - by observation, albeit at second hand - that people
die in road traffic accidents. You read about such incidents every day.
They are reported on TV and radio.

You *know* that people die in road traffic accidents.

Mr MH *knows* (because it is so frequently reported, not least here)
that cyclists often ride straight into open car doors, failing to
observe the road conditions in front of them until it is too late and
failing to proceed at a speed which is safe in all the circumstances.

He does *not* know that drivers drive into open car doors. Such
occurrences, if reported in the media at all, are vanishingly rare, and
in all the years he has been driving, much of it in narrow inner-city
streets and routes (IOW, just the sort of conditions in which cyclists
plough into obstacles of all sorts, including open car doors), he has
never seen such an incident or come close to being involved in one.
Neither have I. Neither, I'll bet, have you.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.

Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between
vehicles as speed rises.

Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively
low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less).

Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough
letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have
grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti.

Stop wriggling: it's undignified.
Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...".
Do you think that roads do that on their own?

That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a
magic number where laws of physics change?

No. You did, though, in trying to introduce "high speed" as a factor
even though it isn't one.

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?

What does that have to do with the topic?

Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists
are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre
when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that."

I had *definitely* noticed that and fully agree with the implicit
sentiment.
It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty
meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing
when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it?

You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic".

Absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. Either it's safe to
leave a gap of a couple of inches, or it isn't.

Which is to be today?

Totally different
things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will remain
stationary long enough to complete the overtake.

What about the risk of misjudgement and damage to the property of
innocent third parties?

Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a
car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why
it is reasonable.

You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on
supposed safety and caution grounds.

Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies
according to curcumstances.

Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and
caution?

So yet again you change the subject.

There *have* been these two distinct but related subjects raised (both
raised by others, I might add).

Are you incapable of dealing with both in the same post?

I'll assume that you are not incapable and so ask the question again:

You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on
supposed safety and caution grounds.

Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and
caution?

"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.

How do you know?

Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?

He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Not by any stretch.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.

Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between
vehicles as speed rises.

Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking
about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg,
30 mph or less).

Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters
for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of
needing alphabetti spaghetti.

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?

What does that have to do with the topic?

Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are
always
whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them,
but pass parked cars much closer than that."

No. The topic was "Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck". The clue is in the
Subject line. Hope this helps.

Then I suggest you moan at Medway for veering off.

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.

How do you know?

Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas
where
exactly those conditions apply?

He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample
of such situations.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Not by any stretch.

Really? Whyever not?
Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers'
hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so?

Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic
accident.
I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic accident. Then I must
suppose that people don't die in road traffic accidents.

That is by no stretch of the imagination (even yours) an equivalent,
whether anecdotal or not.

Too bad. It is valid.

You are well aware - by observation, albeit at second hand - that people
die in road traffic accidents. You read about such incidents every day.
They are reported on TV and radio.

You *know* that people die in road traffic accidents.

Mr MH *knows* (because it is so frequently reported, not least here) that
cyclists often ride straight into open car doors, failing to observe the
road conditions in front of them until it is too late and failing to
proceed at a speed which is safe in all the circumstances.

He does *not* know that drivers drive into open car doors.

He (and us) do(es) not know that drivers don't.

Such occurrences, if reported in the media at all, are vanishingly rare,

Unless reported, there is little widespread knowledge. Without blood the
press has no interest and the press does not report all, even when there is
blood.

and in all the years he has been driving, much of it in narrow inner-city
streets and routes (IOW, just the sort of conditions in which cyclists
plough into obstacles of all sorts, including open car doors), he has
never seen such an incident or come close to being involved in one.
Neither have I. Neither, I'll bet, have you.

Near incidents are usually forgotten very quickly. I'll bet we have.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.

Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get
wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space
between
vehicles as speed rises.

Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively
low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less).

Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough
letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have
grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti.

Stop wriggling: it's undignified.
Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...".
Do you think that roads do that on their own?

That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a
magic number where laws of physics change?

No. You did, though, in trying to introduce "high speed" as a factor even
though it isn't one.

You introduced "high speed" and are attempting to wriggle your way out in
usual fashion. A later (with emphasis, much later) paragraph I made about
overtaking lorries on the motorway was to illustrate a similar situation
that happens on a different scale.

It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty
meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing
when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it?

You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic".

Absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. Either it's safe to
leave a gap of a couple of inches, or it isn't.

There is much to distinguish. Why did you not read further before replying?

Totally different
things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will
remain
stationary long enough to complete the overtake.

I will expand further even though I know it is futile. To overtake a moving
car the car's position will change during the overtake. By definition. It
might even move sideways. A stationary car will remain in position during
the overtake, by definition. A "couple of inches" past a stationary car will
be enough almost unconditionally. Starting an overtake a "couple of inches"
from a moving car is very high risk.

What about the risk of misjudgement and damage to the property of innocent
third parties?

It is not impossible for a cyclist to crash into a parked car, obviously.
What a passing cyclist cannot do to a stationary car is to cause it,
either through surprise or by catching it with its bow wave to swerve into a
ditch. A passing cyclist can only cause damage with a direct collision.

Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a
car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why
it is reasonable.

You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on
supposed safety and caution grounds.

Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies
according to curcumstances.

Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and
caution?

So yet again you change the subject.

There *have* been these two distinct but related subjects raised (both
raised by others, I might add).

If the other road user is a pedestrian they are certainly entitled to a
comfort gap. A stationary car is a completely inanimate object that needs to
be dealt with no differently than anything else that has to be skirted
round.

On 22/05/2015 22:54, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.

How do you know?

Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas
where exactly those conditions apply?

He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample
of such situations.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Not by any stretch.

Really? Whyever not?
Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers'
hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so?

Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic
accident. I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic
accident. Then I must suppose that people don't die in road
traffic accidents.

That is by no stretch of the imagination (even yours) an equivalent,
whether anecdotal or not.

Too bad. It is valid.

That is not argument; it is contradiction. Argument is an intellectual
process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the
other person says.

You are well aware - by observation, albeit at second hand - that people
die in road traffic accidents. You read about such incidents every day.
They are reported on TV and radio.
You *know* that people die in road traffic accidents.
Mr MH *knows* (because it is so frequently reported, not least here) that
cyclists often ride straight into open car doors, failing to observe the
road conditions in front of them until it is too late and failing to
proceed at a speed which is safe in all the circumstances.
He does *not* know that drivers drive into open car doors.

He (and us) do(es) not know that drivers don't.

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Such occurrences, if reported in the media at all, are vanishingly rare,

Unless reported, there is little widespread knowledge. Without blood the
press has no interest and the press does not report all, even when there is
blood.

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of anything the other person says.

and in all the years he has been driving, much of it in narrow inner-city
streets and routes (IOW, just the sort of conditions in which cyclists
plough into obstacles of all sorts, including open car doors), he has
never seen such an incident or come close to being involved in one.
Neither have I. Neither, I'll bet, have you.

Near incidents are usually forgotten very quickly. I'll bet we have.

You are better than this - usually.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.

Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get
wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space
between vehicles as speed rises.

Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively
low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less).

Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough
letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have
grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti.

Stop wriggling: it's undignified.
Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...".
Do you think that roads do that on their own?

That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is a
magic number where laws of physics change?

No. You did, though, in trying to introduce "high speed" as a factor even
though it isn't one.

You introduced "high speed"

That is a silly *lie* on your part and it is hard to see what you hope
to achieve by it.

You tried to introduce the concept of "roads get[ting] faster". I had
*already* made clear that the context was traffic moving at sensibly low
speeds in buitly-up inner-city areas.

and are attempting to wriggle your way out in
usual fashion. A later (with emphasis, much later) paragraph I made about
overtaking lorries on the motorway was to illustrate a similar situation
that happens on a different scale.

Gibberish.

Is that your chosen MO now?

It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty
meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing
when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it?

You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic".

Absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. Either it's safe to
leave a gap of a couple of inches, or it isn't.

There is much to distinguish. Why did you not read further before replying?

Totally different
things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will
remain stationary long enough to complete the overtake.

I will expand further even though I know it is futile. To overtake a moving
car the car's position will change during the overtake. By definition. It
might even move sideways. A stationary car will remain in position during
the overtake, by definition. A "couple of inches" past a stationary car will
be enough almost unconditionally. Starting an overtake a "couple of inches"
from a moving car is very high risk.

What about the risk of misjudgement and damage to the property of innocent
third parties?

It is not impossible for a cyclist to crash into a parked car, obviously.
What a passing cyclist cannot do to a stationary car is to cause it,
either through surprise or by catching it with its bow wave to swerve into a
ditch. A passing cyclist can only cause damage with a direct collision...

....or a sideswipe, which is EXACTLY what we are talking about when we
discuss inadequate clearance.

Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a
car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why
it is reasonable.

You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on
supposed safety and caution grounds.

Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies
according to curcumstances.

Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and
caution?

So yet again you change the subject.

There *have* been these two distinct but related subjects raised (both
raised by others, I might add).

If the other road user is a pedestrian they are certainly entitled to a
comfort gap. A stationary car is a completely inanimate object that needs to
be dealt with no differently than anything else that has to be skirted
round.

Do you not accept that this mere "completely inanimate object" is the
expensive property of someone or other who stands to face significant
financial loss if it is damaged?

"TMS320" wrote in message ...


"Tarcap" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.

How do you know?

Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?

He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Not by any stretch.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.

Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between
vehicles as speed rises.

Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking
about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg,
30 mph or less).

Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters
for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of
needing alphabetti spaghetti.

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?

What does that have to do with the topic?

Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are
always
whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them,
but pass parked cars much closer than that."

No. The topic was "Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck". The clue is in the
Subject line. Hope this helps.

Then I suggest you moan at Medway for veering off.

I'm not moaning at anyone. I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong again.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 22/05/2015 22:54, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars,
often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds
than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.

How do you know?

Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas
where exactly those conditions apply?

He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative
sample
of such situations.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Not by any stretch.

Really? Whyever not?
Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers'
hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so?

Here's an equivalent anecdote. I have never died in a road traffic
accident. I don't know anyone that has died in a road traffic
accident. Then I must suppose that people don't die in road
traffic accidents.

That is by no stretch of the imagination (even yours) an equivalent,
whether anecdotal or not.

Too bad. It is valid.

That is not argument; it is contradiction. Argument is an intellectual
process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the
other person says.

You should practice what you preach. Respond to what people say; do not
create a new random string of words and try to build an argument from there.

You are well aware - by observation, albeit at second hand - that people
die in road traffic accidents. You read about such incidents every day.
They are reported on TV and radio.
You *know* that people die in road traffic accidents.
Mr MH *knows* (because it is so frequently reported, not least here)
that
cyclists often ride straight into open car doors, failing to observe the
road conditions in front of them until it is too late and failing to
proceed at a speed which is safe in all the circumstances.
He does *not* know that drivers drive into open car doors.

He (and us) do(es) not know that drivers don't.

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of anything the other person says.

See above.

Such occurrences, if reported in the media at all, are vanishingly rare,

Unless reported, there is little widespread knowledge. Without blood the
press has no interest and the press does not report all, even when there
is
blood.

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of anything the other person says.

and in all the years he has been driving, much of it in narrow
inner-city
streets and routes (IOW, just the sort of conditions in which cyclists
plough into obstacles of all sorts, including open car doors), he has
never seen such an incident or come close to being involved in one.
Neither have I. Neither, I'll bet, have you.

Near incidents are usually forgotten very quickly. I'll bet we have.

You are better than this - usually.

I see only sniping and no reasoned argument.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least
a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than
that.

Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get
wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space
between vehicles as speed rises.

Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively
low speeds (eg, 30 mph or less).

Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough
letters for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have
grown out of needing alphabetti spaghetti.

Stop wriggling: it's undignified.
Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...".
Do you think that roads do that on their own?

That still doesn't say "high speed". Are you suggesting that 31mph is
a
magic number where laws of physics change?

No. You did, though, in trying to introduce "high speed" as a factor
even
though it isn't one.

You introduced "high speed"

That is a silly *lie* on your part and it is hard to see what you hope to
achieve by it.

Repeat my quote verbatim.

You tried to introduce the concept of "roads get[ting] faster". I had
*already* made clear that the context was traffic moving at sensibly low
speeds in buitly-up inner-city areas.

and are attempting to wriggle your way out in
usual fashion. A later (with emphasis, much later) paragraph I made about
overtaking lorries on the motorway was to illustrate a similar situation
that happens on a different scale.

Gibberish.

Then it is way over your head.

Is that your chosen MO now?

It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty
meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing
when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it?

You have changed "parked cars" to "lines of traffic".

Absolutely no distinction to be drawn between them. Either it's safe to
leave a gap of a couple of inches, or it isn't.

There is much to distinguish. Why did you not read further before
replying?

Totally different
things, unless the line is stationary and can be judged that it will
remain stationary long enough to complete the overtake.

I will expand further even though I know it is futile. To overtake a
moving
car the car's position will change during the overtake. By definition. It
might even move sideways. A stationary car will remain in position during
the overtake, by definition. A "couple of inches" past a stationary car
will
be enough almost unconditionally. Starting an overtake a "couple of
inches"
from a moving car is very high risk.

What about the risk of misjudgement and damage to the property of
innocent
third parties?

It is not impossible for a cyclist to crash into a parked car, obviously.
What a passing cyclist cannot do to a stationary car is to cause it,
either through surprise or by catching it with its bow wave to swerve
into a
ditch. A passing cyclist can only cause damage with a direct collision...

...or a sideswipe, which is EXACTLY what we are talking about when we
discuss inadequate clearance.

Completely wrong. Inadequate clearance between cyclist and parked car has to
involve a collision. Inadequate clearance between moving car and cyclist
need not involve a collision. (Just as reduced motorway lane widths during
roadworks are still wide enough for the physical width of vehicles but
provide inadequate clearance; so that drivers move into staggered formations
and only overtake when one of the lanes is clear.)

Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside
a
car there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons
why
it is reasonable.

You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on
supposed safety and caution grounds.

Indeed. And clearance is not a fixed number but something that varies
according to curcumstances.

Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety
and
caution?
2
So yet again you change the subject.

There *have* been these two distinct but related subjects raised (both
raised by others, I might add).

If the other road user is a pedestrian they are certainly entitled to a
comfort gap. A stationary car is a completely inanimate object that needs
to
be dealt with no differently than anything else that has to be skirted
round.

Do you not accept that this mere "completely inanimate object" is the
expensive property of someone or other who stands to face significant
financial loss if it is damaged?

First you changed the subject to safety to others. Now you've moved to
property damage. You do so chop and change.

I analysed what I do today. I have always noticed that at normal speed
(10-20mph roughly) I set my road position with peripheral vision such that a
line drawn from my eyes to the verge/kerb runs past my left hand. Obviously
I increase gap at higher speed, just like drivers increase spacing as they
go faster (not just on "high speed" roads). If the corridor ahead is
narrower than the base of the triangle formed from glancing past both hands
(about 4 foot wide) this is too narrow to take at normal speed.

You might be pleased to know that I noticed that when passing tall
objects such as walls or parked cars, I move out so the line to the wheels
or base of the wall moves up to go past my elbow. As a test, I consciously
moved in to a kerb's distance away from parked cars on a few occasions
today; it is curiously uncomfortable.

When passing people on foot (even when we are separated by a kerb), I move
out further so that the line to their feet moves up past the top of my arm.

When being overtaken, it is a close overtake when the line to the wheels
goes below the top of my right arm. Do you begrudge me at least as much
space from passing vehicles as I give to people on foot? Or to put another
way, if the distance from passing vehicles is not considered by JNugent to
be inadequate so long as I survive, are you happy for me to pass much closer
to pedestrians?

On Wed, 20 May 2015 15:05:29 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip


Quite - I think you'd need to be a cyclist to realise. As I said up
thread, the school run is a terror for this. And parents who unload
their kids into the road. I despair at times.


There was a cyclists used to post he Simon Mason from Hull.

He explained how he cycled at more than 20mph (the posted limit) past a series
of three schools - because the 20mph speed limit did not apply to cyclists.

On 26/05/15 22:44, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 15:05:29 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

Quite - I think you'd need to be a cyclist to realise. As I said up
thread, the school run is a terror for this. And parents who unload
their kids into the road. I despair at times.

Maybe that's because there are too many cyclists on the pavement.