This morning's commute and other commuting stories

^ this

but there are some who have the skills and ability to make that split second decision and execute it without harm.

It doesn't removed the high risk involved in the manoverve, it can be perform, but the risk is much greater.

Oh dear:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/driver-livid-after-police-blew-up-his-broken-down-taxi-in-terror-scare-near-the-gherkin-9809597.html

saw this guy numerous times on my commute with his mudguard half-hanging off

Fun that as I walked past the Gherkin on Sunday and I didn't see a cab parked outside the slug..

LS Baselayer, tee, cheap leggins, cheap sports shorts, gloves

sorted

But he didn't hit you, no harm no foul right?

Like kids running across the road without looking, it's not dangerous if no one his them.

What are you? fucking Gandhi?

now that's just sick. and highly disrespectful.

How does the State judge what's dangerous?

yo you're all failing to make the trifurcation between perceived danger (from both parties) and actual danger but this is a fucking dumb argument so I'm not getting involved.

@snottyotter you made me spit my tea all over the shop at 'massive judgelord'

They are a bunch of raging judgelords.
What about those pesky children running into the road, are they doing something dangerous?
The state also legislates against a bunch of stuff that isn't dangerous, like drugs and walking on railway lines and the love between a man and his prized trout.
Besides the highway code also mentions the correct way to pass a cyclist, leaving them as much room as you'd give a car, y'know, 'cause less might be dangerous due to unforseen circumstances and whatnot.

They must all be being very dangerous then? Or are they not? What would your judgement be on the matter? Would you maybe think that as another cyclist they might be less likely to cause them harm and should compromise by giving half a cars room, maybe a third of a car? You can surely agree that squeezing through a gap that could shock the other cyclist because they didn't think there was enough room there would go against what that part of the highway code is trying suggest and should be deemed dangerous, despite causing no actual collision on that occasion. Maybe you've forgotten the original bollocks you spouted in the first place and are now answering vaguely related questions and not backing up your original bullshit statement.

Possibly because cyclists are not cars?

There's a thread running on Pistonheads at the moment wherein the OP and his cohorts assert that speed has nothing to do with the danger potential of a vehicle.

A large part of this is the sincere belief on the behalf of most of the mega-Partridges who make up the Pistonheads membership that they are all better drivers than the past 50 years of F1 World champions combined, and that therefore they could drive at 4,000 mph, blindfold, on the telephone, drunk, in perfect safety.

Where it gets entertaining is when they try to deny things such as reaction time, thinking time etc actually exist.

The LOL's never stop, literally.

Anyway, maybe a way of thinking about these things would be to ascribe a value to a travelling object, some sort of combination of kinetic energy and inherant stability.

i.e. a train would have simply enormous KE, but a very low instability figure, and a very low collisison probability.

A car would have a high KE, low I, but high CP, and CP could be variable for time of day, lighting etc.

Bikes would have a very very low KE, moderate to high I, and a low CP.

What would Hippy's formula be?

A drunk train?

Chh-Chh-Chh-Chh-Chh-Chh-Chh-Chh-Chh-Choo

h

That's not for me to judge.

they pull out into oncoming traffic causing the oncoming traffic to break (sic)...

This seems to happen more and more frequently. Usually I'm already swerving and yelling 'stop!' long before they notice me, let alone brake.

There's a thread running on Pistonheads at the moment wherein the OP and his cohorts assert that speed has nothing to do with the danger potential of a vehicle.

I'm guessing they fell asleep during basic physics lessons at school.

A car would have a high KE, low I, but high CP, and CP could be variable for time of day, lighting etc.

Bikes would have a very very low KE, moderate to high I, and a low CP.

While a Pistonhead clearly has an extremely low IQ....

I'm a belming judgelord too. Any further advance on your original statement or have you contradicted yourself too much to go back to it?

You mean like getting off the road and cycling on the pavement? ;)