Altercation with a Scooter rider
Comments
-
DaveP1 wrote:Navrig wrote:DaveP1 wrote:So you think crappy 19th century derived rim brakes can compete with servoed hydraulic disc brakes? oh dear.
If you don't, you've never tried it. When in traffic, I always have both hands on the levers ready to react to whatever the idiots in their tin boxes may do next. I have never been outbraked by any car/van/lorry/bus. It just does not happen. The only exception is if my attention has been elsewhere and I haven't seen the brake lights come on.
"19th century derived rim brakes" work on a lighter system, have maybe a metre of direct-acting cable between the lever and the brake surface, and that's it. Modern vehicle brakes are working on something at least 10x the weight over 5x the distance through God knows what other systems.
You are probably right you have not been outbraked by a bus/car/tractor or whatever but that is probably because they have never really slammed the anchors on and carried out an emergency stop. It is relatively easy for a bike to do a near emergency stop without causing the rider or others problems. If you did it in a vehicle without justification you would cause chaos.
I for one would not want to be tailgating a motorised vehicle on my bike when that vehicle performs an emergency stop. You will not stop before hitting the vehicle.
I'm talking about larger commercial vehicles big enough to suck you along, and I disagree with you, because it never happened. They just don't have the brakes and tyres to do it; maybe your premium German saloon or sports car could. It's all in my past now, I have enough grey hairs without giving myself any more.
Have a read of this:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledr ... _Speed.pdf
According to AASHTO’s “Green Book,”
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, in roadway design, braking and sight distance calculations for all vehicles, including bicycles, are figured using a deceleration rate of 3.4 m/s2 (11.2 ft/s2), which is 0.35 g.
Four-wheeled motor vehicles have much better emergency braking capabilities than bicycles,
approximately 0.6 - 0.7 g (some cars can achieve more than 0.9 g), affording motorists a great
margin for error beyond AASHTO’s roadway design sp
ecification. In contrast, a typical bicyclist
can be expected to decelerate at 0.35 g on clean, dry, level pavement which, coincidentally, is
AASHTO’s figure for roadway design purposes as
previously noted. A conventional bicycle's
theoretical maximum deceleration is limited to about 0.6 g on level pavement by weight transfer,
which can cause pitch-over. However, only a highly skilled bicyclist using optimal technique
may be able to achieve this 0.6 g; most will be far lower at about 0.35 g.
The other point to note is that the above refers to a "conventional" bicycle. Lightweight road bikes with high pressure 23mm tyres will have even lower figures for braking do to smaller contact patch and a greater likelihood to "pitch-over" under sever braking.0 -
For some reason I couldn't read that link. But I would say the quoted data is pessimistic. Cars can exceed 1g there are test results to prove it - Its not just CoF you also need to take account of drag, downforce, electronic brake assist etc. But while the data might be out, the theory is pretty sound. A brake assist computer will be able to do the business much better than the best cyclists, who will be concentrating on balance, stopping their body falling off the front and keeping the tail down.0
-
fuddymox wrote:bernithebiker wrote:LegendLust wrote:
I suggest you sell the bikes and stick to being Dr. Frank N. Furter in future
Totally over my head this one.
Would a pelvic thrust help then?
Ah, Rocky Horror Show.0 -
Well, clearly I had it all coming to me.
In that case, how about this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb7JJlvXTfc
Burn the Witch!
What fate can the lorry driver choose here? Tar and feathers? Or hung, drawn and quartered?
After all, he brought it on himself, right?
0 -
I think we are all capable of doing stupid things on the road from time to time. The difference is we don't come on here whining when it backfires in predictable ways like this.neeb wrote:
+1TheFD wrote:I think the OP is getting unfairly harsh comments from self righteous fellow cyclist who seem to be claiming they would and have never done anything of the like whilst out on a bike!!!
Berni - i'm with you on this one!
He didn't kill you. He frightened you. But whatever, If that's all you really wanted you could have avoided it by not behaving inappropriately in the first place.bernithebiker wrote:Tom Dean wrote:from why what you did was a bad idea, you seem to expect behaviour in response to be BETTER than the behaviour you displayed yourself.
Bizarre. You just aren't getting it. I didn't want him to send me flowers. I just didn't want him to kill me.
I think you should consider the level of respect you showed this person before you expect certain standards in return.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
I think we are all capable of doing stupid things on the road from time to time. The difference is we don't come on here whining when it backfires in predictable ways like this.neeb wrote:
+1TheFD wrote:I think the OP is getting unfairly harsh comments from self righteous fellow cyclist who seem to be claiming they would and have never done anything of the like whilst out on a bike!!!
Berni - i'm with you on this one!
Tom, I think you're losing your temper / sense of humour.0 -
I really don't think the way that this particular incident backfired was "predictable", or that to complain about it is "whining". The reaction of the scooter guy was completely out of proportion to any (very minor, IMO) provocation.Tom Dean wrote:
I think we are all capable of doing stupid things on the road from time to time. The difference is we don't come on here whining when it backfires in predictable ways like this.neeb wrote:
+1TheFD wrote:I think the OP is getting unfairly harsh comments from self righteous fellow cyclist who seem to be claiming they would and have never done anything of the like whilst out on a bike!!!
Berni - i'm with you on this one!
A bit more camaraderie wouldn't go amiss, sometimes the responses on BR make me wonder if people are just looking for excuses to exploit any information just to score cheap points.
Fair enough if you feel that the drafting was daft and not something that you should do, but you can point this out in a friendly way without implying that if you do something like that then you are responsible for any completely OTT response that you get.
He was drafting FFS, not repeatedly whacking the guy around the head with a banana skin.0 -
An idiot meets another idiot on the road. The perfect storm.0
-
OK, maybe the tone of that comment was not helpful. What would a bit more camaraderie look like? all going 'you poor little victim'? I think we all agree the scooterist's response was OTT, being threatened is horrible, but are you suggesting bernie bears none of the responsibility for the incident?neeb wrote:I really don't think the way that this particular incident backfired was "predictable", or that to complain about it is "whining". The reaction of the scooter guy was completely out of proportion to any (very minor, IMO) provocation.
A bit more camaraderie wouldn't go amiss, sometimes the responses on BR make me wonder if people are just looking for excuses to exploit any information just to score cheap points.
Fair enough if you feel that the drafting was daft and not something that you should do, but you can point this out in a friendly way without implying that if you do something like that then you are responsible for any completely OTT response that you get.
He was drafting FFS, not repeatedly whacking the guy around the head with a banana skin.
I think it was predictable. People have got a lot worse for a lot less.
When you say it was 'just drafting' remember not everyone knows what drafting is.0 -
I don't get why the scooter driver has the right to get upset just because a cyclist is drafting. His reaction is completely out of proportion.
It strikes me that a lot of posters either a) work for the Health and Safety executive or b) just like to tell the OP he was wrong for the sale of it. At least OP's bike was most likely clean before he drafted the scooter...0 -
On a commute I overtook a scooter, noticed she had nice shoes and ankles, so Slowed and said to her
Don't you think you should be going faster (I was breathing thru my ears). She said oh I suppose so and sped off.
I think that is a more normal response. Perhaps if i was fitter I could have renewed the conversation at the traffic lights.
FT0 -
You do realise these are two completely separate points? Lots of reasons why he might get upset have been explained. You could read and respond to them. 'I don't get it' doesn't add much to the debate. For the millionth time, yes his reaction was out of proportion.nathancom wrote:I don't get why the scooter driver has the right to get upset just because a cyclist is drafting. His reaction is completely out of proportion.0 -
nathancom wrote:I don't get why the scooter driver has the right to get upset just because a cyclist is drafting. His reaction is completely out of proportion.
The point about the scooter perhaps not knowing about drafting is well made.
Look at it from his point of view.
He passes a small group of cyclists and thinks he has left them behind. Sometime down the road he looks over his shoulder and there is a bike bearing down on him. What goes through his mind?
I've upset that guy and he is chasing me to give me a doing?
or
That guy's taking the pi$$ and I don't like that
or
Who knows but either way he clearly felt aggrieved or threatened by the cyclists behaviour and it seems to have kick started the adrenalin production. The mind and bodies natural reaction to adrenalin is either flight or fight and he chose fight.0 -
ffs if the scooter driver is someone who gets upset because a push bike has latched onto him and is a couple of feet behind then he needs to get a grip. The stench of sanctimony is strong.
I bet some of you drive in outside lane of the motorway at 70mph at all times to prevent perfidious speeders.0 -
nathancom wrote:ffs if the scooter driver is someone who gets upset because a push bike has latched onto him and is a couple of feet behind then he needs to get a grip.
You make it sound as though you are the only person who realises this - whereas everybody does know it. You need to re read the thread and see what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are saying!Faster than a tent.......0 -
YES HE DOES! Who has said otherwise FFS?nathancom wrote:ffs if the scooter driver is someone who gets upset because a push bike has latched onto him and is a couple of feet behind then he needs to get a grip.
(for the second time) - 'Anyone who disagrees with me is just pretending'. Standard response when unable to actually justify one's position.nathancom wrote:The stench of sanctimony is strong.
Who has said anything about 'preventing' anything?nathancom wrote:I bet some of you drive in outside lane of the motorway at 70mph at all times to prevent perfidious speeders.
Two totally irrelevant things to this discussion: The HSE and speed limits. You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my £5.0 -
seems to me like the OP acted a bit like a douche, the scooter rider had a bit of a fright/shock then in turn acted a bit like a douche!
moral of the story? dont act like a douche (i believe that is one of 'The Rules')www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Navrig wrote:
Have a read of this:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledr ... _Speed.pdf
According to AASHTO’s “Green Book,”
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, in roadway design, braking and sight distance calculations for all vehicles, including bicycles, are figured using a deceleration rate of 3.4 m/s2 (11.2 ft/s2), which is 0.35 g.
Four-wheeled motor vehicles have much better emergency braking capabilities than bicycles,
approximately 0.6 - 0.7 g (some cars can achieve more than 0.9 g), affording motorists a great
margin for error beyond AASHTO’s roadway design sp
ecification. In contrast, a typical bicyclist
can be expected to decelerate at 0.35 g on clean, dry, level pavement which, coincidentally, is
AASHTO’s figure for roadway design purposes as
previously noted. A conventional bicycle's
theoretical maximum deceleration is limited to about 0.6 g on level pavement by weight transfer,
which can cause pitch-over. However, only a highly skilled bicyclist using optimal technique
may be able to achieve this 0.6 g; most will be far lower at about 0.35 g.
The other point to note is that the above refers to a "conventional" bicycle. Lightweight road bikes with high pressure 23mm tyres will have even lower figures for braking do to smaller contact patch and a greater likelihood to "pitch-over" under sever braking.
That's a great read, but seems to be comparing cars' braking ability compared to bikes, if you get past the headline. I'm not talking about drafting cars though; I'm talking about buses and lorries. Are there any figures for the g they can generate under braking? And what is the stopping distance of a truck? I'm talking about less than 90 kg of bike and rider compared to 20+ tonne vehicles. Buses and trucks are not good at stopping, even in emergency conditions, and in my experience the only danger of them outbraking you was if your attention was elsewhere.0 -
Then why are you all berating the OP for the fact some nutter tried to intimidate him with a scooter just because he was drafting. The OP did nothing out of the ordinary or dangerous or disrespectful yet he is being told he is to blame for the incident or at best 50% liable.Rolf F wrote:nathancom wrote:ffs if the scooter driver is someone who gets upset because a push bike has latched onto him and is a couple of feet behind then he needs to get a grip.
You make it sound as though you are the only person who realises this - whereas everybody does know it. You need to re read the thread and see what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are saying!0 -
DaveP1 wrote:Navrig wrote:
Have a read of this:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledr ... _Speed.pdf
According to AASHTO’s “Green Book,”
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, in roadway design, braking and sight distance calculations for all vehicles, including bicycles, are figured using a deceleration rate of 3.4 m/s2 (11.2 ft/s2), which is 0.35 g.
Four-wheeled motor vehicles have much better emergency braking capabilities than bicycles,
approximately 0.6 - 0.7 g (some cars can achieve more than 0.9 g), affording motorists a great
margin for error beyond AASHTO’s roadway design sp
ecification. In contrast, a typical bicyclist
can be expected to decelerate at 0.35 g on clean, dry, level pavement which, coincidentally, is
AASHTO’s figure for roadway design purposes as
previously noted. A conventional bicycle's
theoretical maximum deceleration is limited to about 0.6 g on level pavement by weight transfer,
which can cause pitch-over. However, only a highly skilled bicyclist using optimal technique
may be able to achieve this 0.6 g; most will be far lower at about 0.35 g.
The other point to note is that the above refers to a "conventional" bicycle. Lightweight road bikes with high pressure 23mm tyres will have even lower figures for braking do to smaller contact patch and a greater likelihood to "pitch-over" under sever braking.
That's a great read, but seems to be comparing cars' braking ability compared to bikes, if you get past the headline. I'm not talking about drafting cars though; I'm talking about buses and lorries. Are there any figures for the g they can generate under braking? And what is the stopping distance of a truck? I'm talking about less than 90 kg of bike and rider compared to 20+ tonne vehicles. Buses and trucks are not good at stopping, even in emergency conditions, and in my experience the only danger of them outbraking you was if your attention was elsewhere.
Looking at this page which seems to be American regulations there is a table of minimum standards towards the bottom.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-t ... bpartC.xml
This quotes deceleration rates of between 14ft/s^2 and 21ft/s^2 epending on the vehicle weaight and occupancy.
If I have my maths and physics corrects these relate to 4.2m/s^2 and 6.4m/s^2 and with 1g=9.81m/s^2 then the braking force requirements would appear to be:
0.42g and 0.65g
Compared to a maximum likelt stopping force of 0.6g for a skilled rider or 0.35g for a typical rider then the numbers suggest that drafting behind large vehicles is not a good idea.
If you then factor in:
1. You cannot see the traffic ahead because (presumably) you are right behind the vehicle and hence you get no advance warning of changes in speed.
2. The vehicle brake lights are likely to be towards your peripheral vision rather than in your core line of sight
3. The American figures are miimum requirements and new vehicle are likely to outperform them
4. Yor reaction times will reduce any margin of error you have. Average reaction times are 215milliseconds which at 30mph equates to about 3m
5. Normal reaction to something hard approaching your face is to raise your hands as protection. If your hands are in fornt of you then they are not on the brakes.
6. This list could go on and on.
the evidence is that drafting is not a good idea.
Do I workd for the HSE? No but I am a H&S director for my part of the business.
My concern is not for the numpty who choses to draft but for the driver of the vehicle. He has no choice in the matter and if he chooses to brake sharply for a rabbit or a cat (not emergency braking) the numpty behind could be a victim. No-one knows how the driver will react to someone killing themselves on the back of his lorry. I understand that train drivers who experience people chucking themselves in front of their train can take up to a year before they are allowed back behind the controls. That year is filled with counselling and testing.0 -
Navrig - where did you get those reaction times from - I'd expect it to be at least 10m at 30mph (~3/4s) by the time you see brake lights they are already braking, so you have to both react and catch up. This is why you get pile ups on motorways as each car has less and less time to react reducing the stopping distance.
In general I think the dangers of drafting/pace line riding are overly accepted by road cyclists as "what we do" without recognising that its pretty dangerous.
You only have to look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaQJB_bWA4c
Things go wrong when you ride too close. Its not about being in the aero bars (though it didn't help) its about being too close.0 -
diy wrote:Navrig - where did you get those reaction times from - I'd expect it to be at least 10m at 30mph (~3/4s) by the time you see brake lights they are already braking, so you have to both react and catch up. This is why you get pile ups on motorways as each car has less and less time to react reducing the stopping distance.
In general I think the dangers of drafting/pace line riding are overly accepted by road cyclists as "what we do" without recognising that its pretty dangerous.
You only have to look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaQJB_bWA4c
Things go wrong when you ride too close. Its not about being in the aero bars (though it didn't help) its about being too close.
DIY - from here: http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/rea ... /index.php
However I agree entirely with you. Those reaction times are in an ideal situation - sat at your desk with a mouse, screen and no other distractions. In reality the distance would be nearer to 10m but when doing risk assesments I start at the ideal and then factor in the outside world (see my list above).
Add to my list that riding in the drops partially restricts head movement and, potentially, ability to see the brake lights whilst riding the hoods requires you to move your hands down to the brakes to maximise the squeeze.
Motorbikers often use one or two finger braking to make the speed reduction smoother however if during that process the vehicles in front start to stop more quickly then the rider has to release the levers and get the remaining fings over the lever to get maximum squeeze. That is a known risk and one which does materialise.0 -
Navrig wrote:This quotes deceleration rates of between 14ft/s^2 and 21ft/s^2 epending on the vehicle weaight and occupancy.
If I have my maths and physics corrects these relate to 4.2m/s^2 and 6.4m/s^2 and with 1g=9.81m/s^2 then the braking force requirements would appear to be:
0.42g and 0.65g
Compared to a maximum likelt stopping force of 0.6g for a skilled rider or 0.35g for a typical rider then the numbers suggest that drafting behind large vehicles is not a good idea.
Something's not quite right here.
You quote a deceleration of 4.2m/s2, then proceed to give a Force requirement of 0.42g, which is still an acceleration, not a Force. Forces are measured in Newton's.
To produce the Force required at a given acceleration/deceleration, you need to know the mass involved, F=ma.0 -
It would seem that it's far too dangerous (and insulting) to draft anything.
I therefore propose that any cyclist that gets within 3m of another cyclist has his bollox chopped off.
And pelotons should be banned.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:It would seem that it's far too dangerous (and insulting) to draft anything.
I therefore propose that any cyclist that gets within 3m of another cyclist has his bollox chopped off.
And pelotons should be banned.
And therein lies the rub. The peloton KNOW and EXPECT drafting, which is why when you want to draft someone you don't know you should always make them aware of your presence, and THEY HAVE THE CHOICE whether you draft them or not.
blimey, it's just common sense, and more so, courtesy!0 -
pkripper wrote:bernithebiker wrote:It would seem that it's far too dangerous (and insulting) to draft anything.
I therefore propose that any cyclist that gets within 3m of another cyclist has his bollox chopped off.
And pelotons should be banned.
And therein lies the rub. The peloton KNOW and EXPECT drafting, which is why when you want to draft someone you don't know you should always make them aware of your presence, and THEY HAVE THE CHOICE whether you draft them or not.
blimey, it's just common sense, and more so, courtesy!
I will be sure to ask for written permission from anyone I draft in the future.
Scouts honour.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:pkripper wrote:bernithebiker wrote:It would seem that it's far too dangerous (and insulting) to draft anything.
I therefore propose that any cyclist that gets within 3m of another cyclist has his bollox chopped off.
And pelotons should be banned.
And therein lies the rub. The peloton KNOW and EXPECT drafting, which is why when you want to draft someone you don't know you should always make them aware of your presence, and THEY HAVE THE CHOICE whether you draft them or not.
blimey, it's just common sense, and more so, courtesy!
I will be sure to ask for written permission from anyone I draft in the future.
Scouts honour.
Well if you had, this whole situation wouldn't have arisen, so probably a good idea. :roll:0 -
bernithebiker wrote:Navrig wrote:This quotes deceleration rates of between 14ft/s^2 and 21ft/s^2 epending on the vehicle weaight and occupancy.
If I have my maths and physics corrects these relate to 4.2m/s^2 and 6.4m/s^2 and with 1g=9.81m/s^2 then the braking force requirements would appear to be:
0.42g and 0.65g
Compared to a maximum likelt stopping force of 0.6g for a skilled rider or 0.35g for a typical rider then the numbers suggest that drafting behind large vehicles is not a good idea.
Something's not quite right here.
You quote a deceleration of 4.2m/s2, then proceed to give a Force requirement of 0.42g, which is still an acceleration, not a Force. Forces are measured in Newton's.
To produce the Force required at a given acceleration/deceleration, you need to know the mass involved, F=ma.
No. The division of 4.2m/s^2 by 9.8m/s^2 effectively cancels the units giving a ratio equating to deceleration measured as Gs.
Definition:
Divide the deceleration by the standard gravitational acceleration. In U.S. units, this is approximately 32 feet per second per second. For metric units it is 9.8 meters per second per second. The result is the average number of G's applied to achieve the deceleration.0 -
OK fair enough.
From Wiki;
The term g-force is technically incorrect as it is a measure of acceleration, not force.
Braking Force will still be in Newtons which will then result in a deceleration of 'x' g.0 -
What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.pkripper wrote:bernithebiker wrote:pkripper wrote:bernithebiker wrote:It would seem that it's far too dangerous (and insulting) to draft anything.
I therefore propose that any cyclist that gets within 3m of another cyclist has his bollox chopped off.
And pelotons should be banned.
And therein lies the rub. The peloton KNOW and EXPECT drafting, which is why when you want to draft someone you don't know you should always make them aware of your presence, and THEY HAVE THE CHOICE whether you draft them or not.
blimey, it's just common sense, and more so, courtesy!
I will be sure to ask for written permission from anyone I draft in the future.
Scouts honour.
Well if you had, this whole situation wouldn't have arisen, so probably a good idea. :roll:0
