I suspect that for some cyclists that's actually part of the appeal.
If they couldn't weave through traffic laughing in the face of death there would be nothing in it for them.

Technically I think the cyclist was in the right. After all they can legally use the whole lane if they wish and block traffic - so trying to overtake them is the risk of the driver.

But as ghark says having one road for cyclists, cars and HGV's is insane and kills thouands each year.

They were embarrassed for flipping the bird when they were in the wrong, passing the other cyclist without checking traffic?

I feel sorry for cyclists - they really should have their own little road/pathway - it's quite crazy to expect them to pedal alongside machines weighing a couple of tons, going three times as fast, and passing within a few inches of them at these speeds.

I mean, I understand it's hard to find enough space for them on existing roads, but new roads should have better planning. This planning should incorporate completely seamless cycling paths, so they don't have to duck in and out of traffic as they do at present.

At 1:15 - That DHL truck looks like it had recently murdered a cyclist.

At the risk of starting the usual cyclist vs. motorist discussion (as if people are never both):

Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study)

The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found...

Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

...police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases...

...80% of casualties happened during daylight hours.

So the product looks interesting (I'd like to get some), but putting the focus on the visibility choices of the cyclist probably doesn't make too much sense from a statistical point of view.

You can be flashing like a christmas tree, but if a driver isn't looking in the right direction, or you cycle under a bus, it won't really help.

What it does do is position your company as trying to help, while also re-inforcing the idea that your customers are not to blame.

It's not that uncommon to see cyclists with zip ties sticking up from their helmets during Magpie season, to try and deter them

I'm also a Toronto cyclist and your'e right.

But I still swear at bad drivers, give them shit and kick their cars because it makes me feel good in the moment.

The good these guys are doing is recording it so a much wider audience can see it, and that might change things.

I deal with this sort of behaviour every day in Toronto, being a cyclist in a city with very minimal cycling infrastructure. Almost being doored, hit, etc.

Yelling, cursing, being sarcastic and mean will never ever change these people's behaviour. Ever. Have you ever gone home after being yelled at someone about something you're sure you're right about and thought, "Huh. That person who called me an asshole really had a good point."

If anything, it pushes someone on the brink of not being an asshole further onto the wrong side.

I find that if I give very genuine comments like, "Please, sir/maam, that sort of behaviour scares the shit out of me. Can you please be more careful?" their responses are literally (anecdotally) 70% apologetic. 30% can't confront their own behaviour when actually talking to a human, so they ignore you.

Don't get me wrong. I've yelled the fuck out of some people in the heat of the moment. When you almost die that can happen.

But when you're composed enough to respond humanly, the question is are you responding to make yourself feel better, or are you actually trying to influence someone else's behaviour?

It's wind resistance, it makes a massive difference. When they're really far apart the rear driver is just driving better and shaving time off the lead, so he catches up, but once there it's down to drafting to get the little burst of speed to get alongside. The carts are probably approximately equal in power, so he reaches level from the draft position easily enough, but can't keep the momentum to get a lead with the new air resistance on him, just draw level. So they're level, but obviously there's only one sweet racing line to take to keep your speed up and lap time down. You can either pass on the outside (in which case you have to go faster into the turn to stay ahead) or the inside (in which case you have to turn sharper at speed to stay ahead) both of which are risky, or you can return safely to the racing line - i.e. not by swerving into him, but by conceding the lead to him and dropping in behind him. If you do that, you take less risk and give yourself the chance to try again because you're in draft position again. He needs to stay as close as he can and find the right place to overtake so that his superior driving can give him the lead into the racing line of the next corner, at which point he gets right of way and the position advantage the lead gives. Sometimes that's not even possible and lead to what some would call boring races (Monaco Grand Prix) where the leader is decided on the first corner and doesn't change unless they crash out.

I'll draw two parallels:
1. DRS in F1 racing, where a tiny part of the tail opens up for a small part of the track, which drastically increases speed and allows for more interesting races because it almost ensures overtaking. You can also see the same application of the racing line and people conceding position or trying to take different lines and spinning out or locking up.
2. In cycling, the commonly quoted figure is that you can save 40% of your energy by drafting behind a leading cyclist. The Tour de France and every other cycling road race is defined by drafting, cos no lone cyclist would ever be able to keep pace with the peloton which 'cycles' riders in and out of the wind-protected bunch throughout a day. This should convince you more as cyclists are not streamlined objects but still offer significant gains. Go and watch a cycling sprint finish - it's a case of whoever gets behind the fastest guy wins by conserving energy in his wake until it's time to burst out alongside and pass.

I disagree. The oncoming driver reacts quickly and swerves to the side. He/she's the reason the cyclist walked away from it instead of being hospitalised.

Also, she's cycling in an urban area (i.e. interacting with cars) without a helmet. She's an idiot.

Could have charged them for refusing, probably not worth the hassle if they didn't look drunk.

Pedestrians and cyclists can't generally be breath tested, unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion they've been operating a vehicle within the past three hours.

Your video, Psycho Magpie Attacks Cyclist, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That's a big beak. This is why cyclists should wear helmets!