Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" But they have the right to cycle side by side. What if it was a driver going slowly? What you are talking about is overtaking. It happens all the time with other road users. Get over it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" What they were doing is legal. It makes the road safer for them than having cars overtake them at speed. I used to ride 2 abreast when I could for the same reason then once the cars slow down move in front or behind the other cyclist so we weren’t being past by a dickhead doing 50 in a 30/40 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" I was always under the impression that this kind of thing is contrary to the highway code. I may be wrong though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view? I was always under the impression that this kind of thing is contrary to the highway code. I may be wrong though " The highway code says they can ride side by side however not on narrow or busy roads and not while going round bends. They should also be considerate to other road users at all times | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" The car should be in the other lane when overtaking a SINGLE cyclist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view? The car should be in the other lane when overtaking a SINGLE cyclist. " Do you always give a full car width when over taking on your bike 
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view? I was always under the impression that this kind of thing is contrary to the highway code. I may be wrong though " Rule 66...•never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view? The car should be in the other lane when overtaking a SINGLE cyclist. Do you always give a full car width when over taking on your bike
"Have you ever been overtaken by a cyclist? If so you’re driving far too slow! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view? The car should be in the other lane when overtaking a SINGLE cyclist. Do you always give a full car width when over taking on your bike
Have you ever been overtaken by a cyclist? If so you’re driving far too slow! "Tbh half of my overtakes the car is lucky if i bother changing lane. Usualy theres enough room between them and the central reservation to squeeze past and give them the hint :p | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On this question I would tens to take the side of the cyclists. Sunken drains and slippery inspection covers tend to be towards the outer edges of roads and it's not fair to expect any cyclist to ride on the gutter especially if, as a car driver one would take evasive course to avoid these hazards. " Surely then they'd ride single file in command position so theyre as far as possible from the edges not side by side so theyre both at an edge. But that's cause your a bit wrong, covers tend to be in the middle where car tyres aren't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" Easy... Overtake at the next safe place just like the highway code teaches. Sometimes I drive behind cars who are going slower than me. I don't get mad.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Cyclists annoy me when they refuse to use the purpose built cycle paths, however overtaking a group of them cycling close together taking up the whole Lane is far easier than overtaking 2,6,20 who are all spread out over a mile, so for the purpose of this debate I'll let them off! "Those purpose built cycle paths are usually covered in broken glass and aren’t fit to be used. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too scared to comment, I'll get my nuts kicked in either way.... (legal vs right doesn't always match, I can slow down and cause a legal nuisance etc....) " You can't be a legal nuisance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" Again shag? Were you fingered by someone who owned a bicycle? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are far worse menaces on the road than cyclists. " I wouldn't call them a menace but if I come around the corner of a country road at national speed limit and there's s cyclist in the middle of the road doing a 5th of my speed, sometimes in the dark without taillights..... I sort of wonder if they don't have a death wish. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Come on Shag you are better than rehashing the cyclist thing again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are far worse menaces on the road than cyclists. " Yes like anyone wearing a baseball cap behind the wheel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Slow news day
Come on Shag you are better than rehashing the cyclist thing again "He literally did this thread a few weeks ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Slow news day
Come on Shag you are better than rehashing the cyclist thing again
He literally did this thread a few weeks ago."Exactly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too scared to comment, I'll get my nuts kicked in either way.... (legal vs right doesn't always match, I can slow down and cause a legal nuisance etc....) You can't be a legal nuisance." I am regularly in many ways lololol  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break "So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them) Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Slow news day
Come on Shag you are better than rehashing the cyclist thing again
He literally did this thread a few weeks ago.
Exactly "Yes that is right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Slow news day
Come on Shag you are better than rehashing the cyclist thing again
He literally did this thread a few weeks ago.
Exactly
Yes that is right" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Slow news day
Come on Shag you are better than rehashing the cyclist thing again
He literally did this thread a few weeks ago.
Exactly
Yes that is right
"So next time try a unique thread like am I bi or why don't I get meets..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists."Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view? The car should be in the other lane when overtaking a SINGLE cyclist. Do you always give a full car width when over taking on your bike
Have you ever been overtaken by a cyclist? If so you’re driving far too slow!
Tbh half of my overtakes the car is lucky if i bother changing lane.
Usualy theres enough room between them and the central reservation to squeeze past and give them the hint :p"Bad... Let's hope if you have kids, drivers don't do that to them... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority? "There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist. We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?"Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" Read the highway code. Try riding on the roads and see how you need to position yourself for safety. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in an area that has had both the tours France and Yorkshire come through , the area is very popular with cyclists. Because of where we are, there are at least three local cycle races per year. The village is at the top of 1.5 mile 1000ft climb. You can imagine crawling in your car at best 5 miles an hour up this hill most days of the week, If they were considerate single file, perhaps local people pissed off with the bikes and the amount, might not drive so close to get passed. Odd how every stick has too ends and neither recognising the other." 600 ft, just checked it.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in an area that has had both the tours France and Yorkshire come through , the area is very popular with cyclists. Because of where we are, there are at least three local cycle races per year. The village is at the top of 1.5 mile 1000ft climb. You can imagine crawling in your car at best 5 miles an hour up this hill most days of the week, If they were considerate single file, perhaps local people pissed off with the bikes and the amount, might not drive so close to get passed. Odd how every stick has too ends and neither recognising the other." Gonna try and 'draw' this out to show how riding 2 abreast can actually be better....6 cyclists on a lively little haunt through the local area. If they ride single file it looks like this ! ! ! ! ! ! To overtake that you'd need quite a bit of clear road. If they ride 2 abreast it looks like this.... !! !! !! Literally halving the time you need to spend overtaking them. The only person in the wrong when driving too close to pass is the driver....never going to be anyone else I'm afraid. They make the decision to overtake recklessly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are far worse menaces on the road than cyclists. I wouldn't call them a menace but if I come around the corner of a country road at national speed limit and there's s cyclist in the middle of the road doing a 5th of my speed, sometimes in the dark without taillights..... I sort of wonder if they don't have a death wish." Regardless of national speed limit, you should never go round a corner a speed where you wouldn't be able to stop for a hazard. Instead of a cyclist it could equally be , for example, a stationary car. If you plough into that then it's 100% your fault - so why is a cyclist any different. The national speed limit isn't compulsory - it's an upper limit. But you should never be going faster than is appropriate for the road and conditions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know it's legal but it's kinda common courtesy to move over. Like anything in life, if you're out walking and the pathway is too narrow and something is trying to get through you'll move out of the way. So why not do the same on a bike?
"Do you pull over every time a car comes behind you?...... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" Tough titty. It's legal and safer for cyclists to ride side by side. Overtake them......... that's legal too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know it's legal but it's kinda common courtesy to move over. Like anything in life, if you're out walking and the pathway is too narrow and something is trying to get through you'll move out of the way. So why not do the same on a bike?
Do you pull over every time a car comes behind you?...... "Yup. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in an area that has had both the tours France and Yorkshire come through , the area is very popular with cyclists. Because of where we are, there are at least three local cycle races per year. The village is at the top of 1.5 mile 1000ft climb. You can imagine crawling in your car at best 5 miles an hour up this hill most days of the week, If they were considerate single file, perhaps local people pissed off with the bikes and the amount, might not drive so close to get passed. Odd how every stick has too ends and neither recognising the other. Gonna try and 'draw' this out to show how riding 2 abreast can actually be better....6 cyclists on a lively little haunt through the local area. If they ride single file it looks like this ! ! ! ! ! ! To overtake that you'd need quite a bit of clear road. If they ride 2 abreast it looks like this.... !! !! !! Literally halving the time you need to spend overtaking them. The only person in the wrong when driving too close to pass is the driver....never going to be anyone else I'm afraid. They make the decision to overtake recklessly. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks. "I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it. Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder. If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*Monkey pulls up a comfy chair ... this always gets interesting*" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others."There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners. What a ridiculous statement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement. "Yeah it's redicilous. I'm stupid. You got me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement. "I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it." Are they stationary or riding in the middle of the road?.....make your mind up lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it." *monkey raises his hand from his chair* But does the HC also say you should only drive as fast as you can stop in the distance you can see, so blind curve speed slower, see cyclist ... stop in plenty of time *monkey goes back to sipping his G&T* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?"They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in. It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" Haven't read the whole thread but given that you seem to not respect vulnerable road users nor understand basic road safety and rules of the road it's probably a good job you weren't driving | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others."Cyclists predate motorists when it comes to being a road user. You didn't earn your right you passed a test. You have a licence because it is a legal obligation and that right to drive on the road us a privelege that can and frequently is withdrawn. You should probably bear that in mind | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In addition to what Little Brat Evie just posted, which is absolutely common sense, wasn’t there a law passed recently that requires drivers to give a minimum of 1 metre of space to cyclists as they pass them which should result in you having to wait for a clear gap anyway even if they rode in single file? " Not a law as such but many forces are taking action against close passes and certainly against punishment passes. The latter of which should lead to an automatic ban | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view? What they were doing is legal. It makes the road safer for them than having cars overtake them at speed. I used to ride 2 abreast when I could for the same reason then once the cars slow down move in front or behind the other cyclist so we weren’t being past by a dickhead doing 50 in a 30/40" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it." Um, but you shouldn't be driving faster than the stopping distance you can see? What if a lorry had broken down around the bend? Or a child was crossing the road? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. Are they stationary or riding in the middle of the road?.....make your mind up lol " If an object is stationary and driver is going 45 the object is likely to be hit. If a cyclist is going 5 and the driver is going 50. Same difference. So tell me. What is the penalty for going 50 in a 50 zone. What is the fine? There is a difference between doing what is allowed and doing what is wise. It might be a cyclists RIGHT to ride in the middle of the road but whether it is wise is something different. It's a bit like saying there's no law against not looking when you cross the road and therefore refusing to do so. Then blaming the motorist when get run over. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure. "Both sides. I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half. The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car. Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death. The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race. Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back. Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation. I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers. I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. Are they stationary or riding in the middle of the road?.....make your mind up lol If an object is stationary and driver is going 45 the object is likely to be hit. If a cyclist is going 5 and the driver is going 50. Same difference. So tell me. What is the penalty for going 50 in a 50 zone. What is the fine? There is a difference between doing what is allowed and doing what is wise. It might be a cyclists RIGHT to ride in the middle of the road but whether it is wise is something different. It's a bit like saying there's no law against not looking when you cross the road and therefore refusing to do so. Then blaming the motorist when get run over." Can I ask are you one of those motorists that see loads of near misses but fail to see the part your driving plays in them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. Are they stationary or riding in the middle of the road?.....make your mind up lol If an object is stationary and driver is going 45 the object is likely to be hit. If a cyclist is going 5 and the driver is going 50. Same difference. So tell me. What is the penalty for going 50 in a 50 zone. What is the fine? There is a difference between doing what is allowed and doing what is wise. It might be a cyclists RIGHT to ride in the middle of the road but whether it is wise is something different. It's a bit like saying there's no law against not looking when you cross the road and therefore refusing to do so. Then blaming the motorist when get run over." *monkey puts down G&T .. clears throat .. Ahem* Again drive only as fast such that you can stop in the distance you can see. If speed is a factor in hitting an object, due care and attention is the lowest charge you will face *monkey checks glass .. time for a to up* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. Are they stationary or riding in the middle of the road?.....make your mind up lol If an object is stationary and driver is going 45 the object is likely to be hit. If a cyclist is going 5 and the driver is going 50. Same difference. So tell me. What is the penalty for going 50 in a 50 zone. What is the fine? There is a difference between doing what is allowed and doing what is wise. It might be a cyclists RIGHT to ride in the middle of the road but whether it is wise is something different. It's a bit like saying there's no law against not looking when you cross the road and therefore refusing to do so. Then blaming the motorist when get run over." Well done in changing the wording in your post that I quoted in an effort to make me look silly! Your posts make no sense and just make you look like a belligerent car driver who thinks they have ultimate right if way, not afraid to use their car as a battering ram to prove their point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
at the end of everything | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it." I took an advanced driving course last year and the continual refrain from the instructor was only drive as fast as you can safely stop in the distance you have clear. So there's no excuse for almost hitting a cyclist you find around a corner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. I took an advanced driving course last year and the continual refrain from the instructor was only drive as fast as you can safely stop in the distance you have clear. So there's no excuse for almost hitting a cyclist you find around a corner." Hang on .. didn't I say that? Testing testing 1 2 1 2 ... can anyone hear me?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. Are they stationary or riding in the middle of the road?.....make your mind up lol If an object is stationary and driver is going 45 the object is likely to be hit. If a cyclist is going 5 and the driver is going 50. Same difference. So tell me. What is the penalty for going 50 in a 50 zone. What is the fine? There is a difference between doing what is allowed and doing what is wise. It might be a cyclists RIGHT to ride in the middle of the road but whether it is wise is something different. It's a bit like saying there's no law against not looking when you cross the road and therefore refusing to do so. Then blaming the motorist when get run over." Do you have a problem with horses on the road too? Do they cause you road rage? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. I took an advanced driving course last year and the continual refrain from the instructor was only drive as fast as you can safely stop in the distance you have clear. So there's no excuse for almost hitting a cyclist you find around a corner. Hang on .. didn't I say that? Testing testing 1 2 1 2 ... can anyone hear me??" Loud n clear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. Are they stationary or riding in the middle of the road?.....make your mind up lol If an object is stationary and driver is going 45 the object is likely to be hit. If a cyclist is going 5 and the driver is going 50. Same difference. So tell me. What is the penalty for going 50 in a 50 zone. What is the fine? There is a difference between doing what is allowed and doing what is wise. It might be a cyclists RIGHT to ride in the middle of the road but whether it is wise is something different. It's a bit like saying there's no law against not looking when you cross the road and therefore refusing to do so. Then blaming the motorist when get run over." I will answer your 'points' though. If an object is stationary and you come join it in your car you make every effort to avoid hitting it. Braking and steering. Basic driving here. Similarly for slower moving vehicles on the road. If you hit someone while doing 50 in a 50 you will still face charges of driving without due date and attention depending on the conditions of the day (has rain affected the breaking distance for example), and whether there was any reason you should not have been driving at the top of the speed limit (blind bends, blind summits) etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. I took an advanced driving course last year and the continual refrain from the instructor was only drive as fast as you can safely stop in the distance you have clear. So there's no excuse for almost hitting a cyclist you find around a corner. Hang on .. didn't I say that? Testing testing 1 2 1 2 ... can anyone hear me?? Loud n clear "Phew .. thanks .. was worried that my interjections were being missed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. I took an advanced driving course last year and the continual refrain from the instructor was only drive as fast as you can safely stop in the distance you have clear. So there's no excuse for almost hitting a cyclist you find around a corner. Hang on .. didn't I say that? Testing testing 1 2 1 2 ... can anyone hear me?? Loud n clear
Phew .. thanks .. was worried that my interjections were being missed "Awww you're welcome | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One person says I can drive in the road there's no law against it. Another person says I can drive at the speed limit there's no law against it. So here's the thing. It isn't a dangerous situation until the near statonary cyclist decides to ride in the middle of the road. Put ANY statonary object in the middle of the road around a blind curve and you won't have to wait long for someone to hit it. Are they stationary or riding in the middle of the road?.....make your mind up lol If an object is stationary and driver is going 45 the object is likely to be hit. If a cyclist is going 5 and the driver is going 50. Same difference. So tell me. What is the penalty for going 50 in a 50 zone. What is the fine? There is a difference between doing what is allowed and doing what is wise. It might be a cyclists RIGHT to ride in the middle of the road but whether it is wise is something different. It's a bit like saying there's no law against not looking when you cross the road and therefore refusing to do so. Then blaming the motorist when get run over. Can I ask are you one of those motorists that see loads of near misses but fail to see the part your driving plays in them?" Ask away. I am driver who in 9 years of driving in the UK has never had a traffic violation ticket. In the 32 years since I received my driving license I have had one serious accident which was unquestionably the other drivers fault. I consider myself a safe driver. I posted earlier that I was patiently driving behind a cyclist in the middle of the road. My reason for doing so was that if I didn't have such good lights I might have hit him. I drove behind him to protect him from the next guy who might be speeding and not have good lights. Why? Because I was previously an avid cyclist myself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The speed limit is just that, not a target to achieve." Sadly, that is something many drivers seem to forget. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like."I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours? If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33]" You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise." But there is a law against it....you get charged with driving without due care and attention even if you are within the posted speed limit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped "Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed. It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise." *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped "And 99%!if the time she has glucose and 99% I don’t forget the potatoes for Sunday dinner. And I would never wish the guilt of someone’s death on any false sense of official Dom. Do you know you talk in first and third person, hope there are no more people in your head. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?"Because that's what he said
Having marshalled various closed road events we are told that the only vehicles allowed into the route are emergency vehicles and carers etc anyone can claim to have a sick person at home. When I've marshalled previously and anyone has wanted access to the road we radio event control and they will endeavour to provide safe passage for said person.
The roads are legally closed and closures posted weeks in advance giving local residents time to plan ahead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess*" Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?"So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced. But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?
So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced.
But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda. "Not twisting anything, if you think that a bike and an ego are greater than human life, that’s your values, not mine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
And 99%!if the time she has glucose and 99% I don’t forget the potatoes for Sunday dinner.
And I would never wish the guilt of someone’s death on any false sense of official Dom.
Do you know you talk in first and third person, hope there are no more people in your head. "And if you had driven head on in to a bunch of cyclists who had assumed the road traffic free because a road closure was in place what then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone?" If you hit something or someone that could have been avoidable by varying your speed to the conditions (other road users could be described as "conditions" to base your decision making on) ... then driving without due care and attention ... or even ... narrow road blind corners ... dangerous driving | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?
So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced.
But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda.
Not twisting anything, if you think that a bike and an ego are greater than human life, that’s your values, not mine."What part of "the road was closed" can't you understand? I know you think you have aright to drive anywhere but that doesn't include down a closed road | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone?" Yes it is. Christ you should hand your licence in right now. It's scary! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?
So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced.
But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda.
Not twisting anything, if you think that a bike and an ego are greater than human life, that’s your values, not mine.
What part of "the road was closed" can't you understand?
I know you think you have aright to drive anywhere but that doesn't include down a closed road "Have you got family? If you have you know damn well it gives you a right if they are in danger., a human right. Suppose human rights don’t count if you have a certificate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?
So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced.
But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda.
Not twisting anything, if you think that a bike and an ego are greater than human life, that’s your values, not mine.
What part of "the road was closed" can't you understand?
I know you think you have aright to drive anywhere but that doesn't include down a closed road
Have you got family?
If you have you know damn well it gives you a right if they are in danger., a human right.
Suppose human rights don’t count if you have a certificate.
"But the road was closed? I get the shit situation you were in but you seem oblivious to the danger your actions would have placed many other people in. You do realise that the police would have authorised, charged for and been actively involved in that closure? It's not one guy in hi-viz on a power trip. As Evie has said the instruction is simple dnot allow unauthorised vehicles on the course because of the danger they present. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? If you hit something or someone that could have been avoidable by varying your speed to the conditions (other road users could be described as "conditions" to base your decision making on) ... then driving without due care and attention ... or even ... narrow road blind corners ... dangerous driving" If it is raining one can be expected to adjust their speed accordingly. Same for snow, high winds etc. There are signs for deer, slippery roads, children crossing the road, never seen a sign that there might be suicidal cyclists in the middle of the road on a sharp corner. Has anyone ever seen the first fatality of a driverless car? The pedestrian chose to cross the road in dark spot between two bright street lights. You don't even realise there's a dark spot until the pedestrian appears out of nowhere in front of the car. Here's a quote: The chances of having a country lane accident are actually higher than on motorways. In fact, the number of people killed on country roads compared to on motorways in 2015, was nearly ten times higher. According to statistics, 59% of all fatalities on the roads happen on country lanes. In 2015, 10,307 people were seriously injured or killed on country roads. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? If you hit something or someone that could have been avoidable by varying your speed to the conditions (other road users could be described as "conditions" to base your decision making on) ... then driving without due care and attention ... or even ... narrow road blind corners ... dangerous driving If it is raining one can be expected to adjust their speed accordingly. Same for snow, high winds etc. There are signs for deer, slippery roads, children crossing the road, never seen a sign that there might be suicidal cyclists in the middle of the road on a sharp corner. Has anyone ever seen the first fatality of a driverless car? The pedestrian chose to cross the road in dark spot between two bright street lights. You don't even realise there's a dark spot until the pedestrian appears out of nowhere in front of the car. Here's a quote: The chances of having a country lane accident are actually higher than on motorways. In fact, the number of people killed on country roads compared to on motorways in 2015, was nearly ten times higher. According to statistics, 59% of all fatalities on the roads happen on country lanes. In 2015, 10,307 people were seriously injured or killed on country roads." Suggests motorists should adapt how they drove on them then doesn't it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? If you hit something or someone that could have been avoidable by varying your speed to the conditions (other road users could be described as "conditions" to base your decision making on) ... then driving without due care and attention ... or even ... narrow road blind corners ... dangerous driving If it is raining one can be expected to adjust their speed accordingly. Same for snow, high winds etc. There are signs for deer, slippery roads, children crossing the road, never seen a sign that there might be suicidal cyclists in the middle of the road on a sharp corner. Has anyone ever seen the first fatality of a driverless car? The pedestrian chose to cross the road in dark spot between two bright street lights. You don't even realise there's a dark spot until the pedestrian appears out of nowhere in front of the car. Here's a quote: The chances of having a country lane accident are actually higher than on motorways. In fact, the number of people killed on country roads compared to on motorways in 2015, was nearly ten times higher. According to statistics, 59% of all fatalities on the roads happen on country lanes. In 2015, 10,307 people were seriously injured or killed on country roads." How is that relevant? Of course the likelihood is higher. Motorways are at least 3 lanes of traffic driving in the same direction. You need a sign to tell you to slow down round blind bends? Seriously.... I'd post the DVLA address to surrender your licence if I didn't think it was banned on here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?
So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced.
But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda.
Not twisting anything, if you think that a bike and an ego are greater than human life, that’s your values, not mine.
What part of "the road was closed" can't you understand?
I know you think you have aright to drive anywhere but that doesn't include down a closed road
Have you got family?
If you have you know damn well it gives you a right if they are in danger., a human right.
Suppose human rights don’t count if you have a certificate.
But the road was closed? I get the shit situation you were in but you seem oblivious to the danger your actions would have placed many other people in.
You do realise that the police would have authorised, charged for and been actively involved in that closure? It's not one guy in hi-viz on a power trip. As Evie has said the instruction is simple dnot allow unauthorised vehicles on the course because of the danger they present. "This reminds me of when a guy at work had a heart attack. They wouldn't let the EMTs use the defribulator because it didn't have a PAT sticker. We shall maintain health and safety rules no matter who gets killed in the process. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? If you hit something or someone that could have been avoidable by varying your speed to the conditions (other road users could be described as "conditions" to base your decision making on) ... then driving without due care and attention ... or even ... narrow road blind corners ... dangerous driving If it is raining one can be expected to adjust their speed accordingly. Same for snow, high winds etc. There are signs for deer, slippery roads, children crossing the road, never seen a sign that there might be suicidal cyclists in the middle of the road on a sharp corner. Has anyone ever seen the first fatality of a driverless car? The pedestrian chose to cross the road in dark spot between two bright street lights. You don't even realise there's a dark spot until the pedestrian appears out of nowhere in front of the car. Here's a quote: The chances of having a country lane accident are actually higher than on motorways. In fact, the number of people killed on country roads compared to on motorways in 2015, was nearly ten times higher. According to statistics, 59% of all fatalities on the roads happen on country lanes. In 2015, 10,307 people were seriously injured or killed on country roads." Because of arrogant arses driving at the speed limit because it was their right perhaps ... you've just destroyed your own argument Think I may find a thread that had more sensible adult responses Ooo fuck suck kiss avoid ... prefect Erm avoid all country roads around Abingdon | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?
So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced.
But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda.
Not twisting anything, if you think that a bike and an ego are greater than human life, that’s your values, not mine.
What part of "the road was closed" can't you understand?
I know you think you have aright to drive anywhere but that doesn't include down a closed road
Have you got family?
If you have you know damn well it gives you a right if they are in danger., a human right.
Suppose human rights don’t count if you have a certificate.
But the road was closed? I get the shit situation you were in but you seem oblivious to the danger your actions would have placed many other people in.
You do realise that the police would have authorised, charged for and been actively involved in that closure? It's not one guy in hi-viz on a power trip. As Evie has said the instruction is simple dnot allow unauthorised vehicles on the course because of the danger they present.
This reminds me of when a guy at work had a heart attack. They wouldn't let the EMTs use the defribulator because it didn't have a PAT sticker.
We shall maintain health and safety rules no matter who gets killed in the process."I hate to suggest that this anecdote is less than true but why would a defib need to have been PAT tested? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? If you hit something or someone that could have been avoidable by varying your speed to the conditions (other road users could be described as "conditions" to base your decision making on) ... then driving without due care and attention ... or even ... narrow road blind corners ... dangerous driving If it is raining one can be expected to adjust their speed accordingly. Same for snow, high winds etc. There are signs for deer, slippery roads, children crossing the road, never seen a sign that there might be suicidal cyclists in the middle of the road on a sharp corner. Has anyone ever seen the first fatality of a driverless car? The pedestrian chose to cross the road in dark spot between two bright street lights. You don't even realise there's a dark spot until the pedestrian appears out of nowhere in front of the car. Here's a quote: The chances of having a country lane accident are actually higher than on motorways. In fact, the number of people killed on country roads compared to on motorways in 2015, was nearly ten times higher. According to statistics, 59% of all fatalities on the roads happen on country lanes. In 2015, 10,307 people were seriously injured or killed on country roads. How is that relevant? Of course the likelihood is higher. Motorways are at least 3 lanes of traffic driving in the same direction. You need a sign to tell you to slow down round blind bends? Seriously.... I'd post the DVLA address to surrender your licence if I didn't think it was banned on here. " It's relevant because it shows that it isn't an ideal world and that people don't slow down around bends on country roads and to carry on regardless because they "should" is not living in the real world. Sure. Go ahead. Report me. Tell them I go 50 in the 50 zone. I'm terrified. While you're at it suggest that they set speed traps on the other side of blind bends to catch people who didn't slow down  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?
So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced.
But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda.
Not twisting anything, if you think that a bike and an ego are greater than human life, that’s your values, not mine.
What part of "the road was closed" can't you understand?
I know you think you have aright to drive anywhere but that doesn't include down a closed road
Have you got family?
If you have you know damn well it gives you a right if they are in danger., a human right.
Suppose human rights don’t count if you have a certificate.
But the road was closed? I get the shit situation you were in but you seem oblivious to the danger your actions would have placed many other people in.
You do realise that the police would have authorised, charged for and been actively involved in that closure? It's not one guy in hi-viz on a power trip. As Evie has said the instruction is simple dnot allow unauthorised vehicles on the course because of the danger they present.
This reminds me of when a guy at work had a heart attack. They wouldn't let the EMTs use the defribulator because it didn't have a PAT sticker.
We shall maintain health and safety rules no matter who gets killed in the process.
I hate to suggest that this anecdote is less than true but why would a defib need to have been PAT tested? "It is true. It happened at a pharmaceutical company in Ware, Hertfordshire. The EMTs struggled to get through the gate because security had not been advised of their arrival. The the safety rules stated that no portable electical equipment was to be used without a PAT sticker. And some people can't think for themselves. It seems the million one chance that someone gets shocked outweighed the very likely chance that the patient die. BTW the way the guy made it OK. (Despite all odds). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do we constantly get posts knocking cyclists if every bike rider took to cars instead there would be far more congestion and pollution. I’m a cyclist motor cyclist and a driver and out of the three vehicles cars cause more deaths on the roads than the other two combined. Give us two wheelers a break
So when you see one cyclist dawdling along with 50 cars stuck behind in second gear belching out polution you consider you consider that cyclist to be saving the planet? (Especially when there is an empty unused cycling path next to them)
Oh by the way I have used all three forms of transport too. I think the real problem is the lack of infrastructure for cyclists.
Come on, how many cycle paths do you see in the countryside. Also when you consider the bicycle was around before the car, surely that should have priority?
There's a stretch between Drayton and Abingdon that has a really wide cycling path and its usually empty with cyclists using the road which has no verge. Traffic sometimes backs up completely between the two towns behind one cyclist.
We started of walking. So does that mean we can walk in the cycling path?
Well it’s funny you should say that, pedestrians on cycle paths and broken glass are the main reason I cycle on the road instead. Also I pay road fund license on 3 cars a year so I feel like I’ve earned the right to use the road in whatever form I feel like regardless of what anyone else with a chip on their shoulder thinks.
I've earned the right to drive on the road at the national speed limit and if I come around a blind corner and there's an almost statonary cyclist in the middle of the road I will certainly try to stop on time. But can't guarantee it.
Between my last posting and this one I was almost completely annihilated by a big 4X4 trying to overtake a cyclist who was riding so slowly that the bike nealy fell over. There was a perfectly good cycling path alongside that other cyclist were using. If objecting to nearly being killed because of someones hard nosed arrogance means I have a chip on my shoulder well then I guess I do. I think that anyone who holds up hundreds of people on the road when it could be avoided simply because "it is their right" has a chip on their shoulder.
If are reasons why cycling paths are unusable then that is the problem that needs to be addressed, not creating a new problem for others.
There is absolutely no right, either earnt or given, to drive at the national speed limit at any occasion. You drive up to the posted speed limit in a manner that is safe for the road conditions....including going round corners.
What a ridiculous statement.
I agree, you drive to the road conditions, thing is if it’s a narrow road why don’t cyclist ride to take into consideration the road conditions and other users?
They should on narrow roads. When k cycle in groups in country lanes we will ride 2 abreast until we hear a car approaching and will shout 'car up' to tell others to move in.
It's all in the highway code. Perhaps we should have refresher theory tests. Some on here could do with them for sure.
Both sides.
I have three examples of cyclists, first on I mentioned was driving in first gear for a mile and a half.
The second was my wife is diabetic and her blood sugars started dropping fast. She asked me to get some glucose, on the way back I encountered a cycle race and a man in high viz stood in the middle of the road and told me to stop a bicycle race was coming through. I explained the situation and he stood in front of my car.
Anyway after he went to sit down I drove off no problem, worried that my wife might be hypoglycaemic or even in a coma and rearing to a previous post, if someone needs to get past lay then, who knows their wife might be on the edge of death.
The third was great, there is a lane mostly single file that the locals take very slowly because of the width and blind bends. A cycle club decides to use this lane for a race.
Saw them coming so I stopped the car, two of them hit the car, I got out to make sure they were okay, to a load of verbal abuse, frightened the life out of my two young kids in the back.
Later that week I got a solicitor letter ask for compensation.
I sent the dash cam footage back and sued the fuckers.
I will add I still like to see bikes in the village. It’s the idiots (in any forum of transport) I don’t like.
I'll be honest if I had a chronic and potentially life threatening condition I'd probably have glucose available sonewhere that wasn't a car drive away. While the story suits your anti cyclist agenda what for there had been an accident closing the road for hours?
If the Marshall had the power (police approved) to stop traffic then the competitors would have been exoectin a clear passage. The Marshall can't let you through because the oncoming race has no idea you'll be there. And if it had been a real emergency then blue lights and sirens would have tot you through and the race temporarily stopped
Well there you go. If you hadn't planned for that medical emergency then your wife simply deserved to die. Far more preferable than cyclists have their their race disturbed.
It's their RIGHT!!! Didn't you know?
So you have been arguing your right to drive as you see fit but think a motorist should have been allowed passed a road closure that is legally in place with polive approval? Because the cyclists in a race on closed roads have the right to expect that closure to be enforced.
But you know as well as I do that you are twisting the point. The road could have been closed for any reason, the fact it was a bike race is immaterial. The 'emergency' could gave been avoided quite easily with some planning. The anecdote conveniently just fits the agenda.
Not twisting anything, if you think that a bike and an ego are greater than human life, that’s your values, not mine.
What part of "the road was closed" can't you understand?
I know you think you have aright to drive anywhere but that doesn't include down a closed road
Have you got family?
If you have you know damn well it gives you a right if they are in danger., a human right.
Suppose human rights don’t count if you have a certificate.
But the road was closed? I get the shit situation you were in but you seem oblivious to the danger your actions would have placed many other people in.
You do realise that the police would have authorised, charged for and been actively involved in that closure? It's not one guy in hi-viz on a power trip. As Evie has said the instruction is simple dnot allow unauthorised vehicles on the course because of the danger they present.
This reminds me of when a guy at work had a heart attack. They wouldn't let the EMTs use the defribulator because it didn't have a PAT sticker.
We shall maintain health and safety rules no matter who gets killed in the process."Utter shite! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have decided to change my view from last week, now I say let's replace all roads with forest and ban everyone from travelling except on pogo sticks "I will upgrade the spring so my pogo stick is faster than yours | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have decided to change my view from last week, now I say let's replace all roads with forest and ban everyone from travelling except on pogo sticks "That's one way to keep Philips Landrover out of the ditch | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone?" It is. Same as ice on the road ... would you still drive at 50 because that's the limit or drive to the conditions and hazards? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" Would have* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Slow news day
Come on Shag you are better than rehashing the cyclist thing again
He literally did this thread a few weeks ago.
Exactly "I don't even think it was that long tbh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I hate to suggest that this anecdote is less than true but why would a defib need to have been PAT tested? " They most certainly need to be PAT tested to keep the operators and patients safe. They carry enough stored energy to kill about 20 people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically if I have a point of view that you don't agree with and prove me wrong with logical debate I will respect you and accept a new standpoint and thank you for making me a wiser man. If however you do not have the mental capacity or strength of argument to prove me wrong but instead resort to attacking my person then I am unlikely to be persuaded. Telling me my thoughts are redicilous is not what I consider a strong argument. Lettimg us know you've spat your drink out lends no credence. " In my defence, I gave a reasoned argument to what you said that made me spit my well earned G&T out... for the record I think you owe me a gin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view? What they were doing is legal. It makes the road safer for them than having cars overtake them at speed. I used to ride 2 abreast when I could for the same reason then once the cars slow down move in front or behind the other cyclist so we weren’t being past by a dickhead doing 50 in a 30/40" had the same dick head as you overtake me in a 30. To stop at the traffic light two cars in front. He did get loads of diesel smoke as I beet him of the lights. As he try’s to get he’s stupid shoes inside the pedals. Cocks all of you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was walking home today on my walk and I saw 2 cyclists beside eachother and a car came behind them, they continued to block the path so the car had to wait and then pull over to the next lane, if I was a cyclist I would of been after eachother, no need to block a road, whats your view?" Four weeks ago in the other post you started on the same topic you were told that it is perfectly legal to for cyclists to be two abreast,apart from on a bend or busy road etc....nothing’s changed from four weeks ago | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? It is. Same as ice on the road ... would you still drive at 50 because that's the limit or drive to the conditions and hazards? " You can't compare the two. Icy conditions are to be expected when ambient conditions are met. Cyclists can't be predicted or expected. Personally I've probably come across thousands of cyclists on blind rises sharp corners etc and never hit one. So obviously I drive at a speed suitable to my reaction time and stopping ability. Some of these cyclists have been on unlit roads at night with no lights and riding right next to a cycling path. Why does the onus of road safey reside totally on the car driver? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? It is. Same as ice on the road ... would you still drive at 50 because that's the limit or drive to the conditions and hazards? You can't compare the two. Icy conditions are to be expected when ambient conditions are met. Cyclists can't be predicted or expected. Personally I've probably come across thousands of cyclists on blind rises sharp corners etc and never hit one. So obviously I drive at a speed suitable to my reaction time and stopping ability. Some of these cyclists have been on unlit roads at night with no lights and riding right next to a cycling path. Why does the onus of road safey reside totally on the car driver?" Because when a bike and a car interact, the cyclist is likely to end up in a black bag, and as an intelligent person, you should drive defensively, rather than aggressively. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? It is. Same as ice on the road ... would you still drive at 50 because that's the limit or drive to the conditions and hazards? You can't compare the two. Icy conditions are to be expected when ambient conditions are met. Cyclists can't be predicted or expected. Personally I've probably come across thousands of cyclists on blind rises sharp corners etc and never hit one. So obviously I drive at a speed suitable to my reaction time and stopping ability. Some of these cyclists have been on unlit roads at night with no lights and riding right next to a cycling path. Why does the onus of road safey reside totally on the car driver?" Or maybe cyclists aren't the hazard that you are trying to imply they are? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The cycle lanes have a speed limit on them, hence road cycle bikers using the road. Cycle lanes are often next to pedestrian lanes and therefore it is dangerous to ride at speed on them. " I often hit 35mph along Brighton sea front cycle path, God help anyone who stepped out in front of me. With a tailwind you can get up to 40, not bad on a hybrid either. Brighton sea front is a shared space, cycle path and footpath separated by a painted line. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 24/04/19 20:26:33] You're missing the point completely. If I want to drive at the speed limit that is my right. There is no law against it. If I drive at the speed limit where it where it is reckless to do so then it is unwise. If you want to ride in the middle of the road at low speeds at night that is your right. But equally as unwise. *monkey sprays G&T incredulously * Right?? Your right to drive at the speed limit regardless of conditions etc.??? Bollocks!!! * monkey goes to find kitchen towel to mop up mess* Cyclists riding in the middle of the road at low spees isn't a road condition. So what is the fine for driving at 50 in a 50 zone? It is. Same as ice on the road ... would you still drive at 50 because that's the limit or drive to the conditions and hazards? You can't compare the two. Icy conditions are to be expected when ambient conditions are met. Cyclists can't be predicted or expected. Personally I've probably come across thousands of cyclists on blind rises sharp corners etc and never hit one. So obviously I drive at a speed suitable to my reaction time and stopping ability. Some of these cyclists have been on unlit roads at night with no lights and riding right next to a cycling path. Why does the onus of road safey reside totally on the car driver? Because when a bike and a car interact, the cyclist is likely to end up in a black bag, and as an intelligent person, you should drive defensively, rather than aggressively." So because a cyclist cones off second best they are in the right no matter how irresponsibly they have needlessly put themselves in danger? This is the paradigm we currently subscribe to and yet there still way many cyclist incidents. So maybe it's not a good paradigm and needs changing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are far worse menaces on the road than cyclists. I wouldn't call them a menace but if I come around the corner of a country road at national speed limit and there's s cyclist in the middle of the road doing a 5th of my speed, sometimes in the dark without taillights..... I sort of wonder if they don't have a death wish." Are you driving safely for the road or weather conditions, imagine if that was a broken down tractor. What would the consequence be then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll say what i said in the other thread id like cycalists to have a right hand mirrror and some kind of legal requirements for thier lights because some are just utterly blinding" as are the new led lights in some cars | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll say what i said in the other thread id like cycalists to have a right hand mirrror and some kind of legal requirements for thier lights because some are just utterly blinding" There we have it. Schroedingers cyclist. If he's not invisible his lights are too bright! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are far worse menaces on the road than cyclists. I wouldn't call them a menace but if I come around the corner of a country road at national speed limit and there's s cyclist in the middle of the road doing a 5th of my speed, sometimes in the dark without taillights..... I sort of wonder if they don't have a death wish. Are you driving safely for the road or weather conditions, imagine if that was a broken down tractor. What would the consequence be then?" Who needs to worry about broken down tractors. There might be s car coming at you on the wrong side of the road! Why? Overtaking a cyclist of course... Actually I've had that. A trailer overturned on a corner and lay completely across the road at night on a rural road. Scary! The facts are that bicycles are easier to harder to pick up than cars and the speed differential makes things worse. Cyclists should be doing everything they can to increase their visibility and safety. There's lots of things in this world that aren't illegal and are your right but will endanger your health. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think OP that you won't see that as a road user you have to expect the unexpected and drive accordingly. I really hope you never have an accident but your attitude to driving and your 'rights' increases the risk quite a lot, especially with the complacency which comes with declaring yourself a safe driver. " Before you crucify me in a car made to safely brake at high speeds on an Auto bahn. Remember to crucify the fully loaded 18 wheeler ahead of me driving the same speed but able to stop in ten times the distance I can. And just by the way the car drives perfectly on ice. But cheers for your concern people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll say what i said in the other thread id like cycalists to have a right hand mirrror and some kind of legal requirements for thier lights because some are just utterly blinding There we have it. Schroedingers cyclist. If he's not invisible his lights are too bright! " No nothing to do with brightness beam hight and position. You know like how every motorcycle car, van, lorry etc is tested for and legaly required to meet because of thw risk of dazzling other drivers. Something that wasn't an issue for cycalists till the invention kf high output low power Leds and lithium batteries The law needs updating to accommodate the new tech. Might just stick a 50 watt Cree cob on the front of my bike and burn out peoples retinas | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll say what i said in the other thread id like cycalists to have a right hand mirrror and some kind of legal requirements for thier lights because some are just utterly blinding as are the new led lights in some cars" Theyre aimed down and left though. Unless its a bad retrofit job or theyre missaligned | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cycle to work each day and use cycle paths and rarely used roads where I can because main roads are full of pot holes. I can see both sides as there are some proper dickhead cyclists that deserve to get knocked off their bike, there are also some seriously stupid drivers that give no space whatsoever and I swear they get as close as they can just to be a prick. " I love to cycle but have never done so in the UK because I think it's too dangerous. The infrastructure does not promote cycling the way it does in some other parts of Europe such as Holland or Switzerland etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast?" There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. " Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives?" We can't get the idiot drivers to do the posted speed limits, as good an idea as it is. I some how doubt you will get drivers willingly accepting a 20 mph speed limit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives?" Interestingly research had shown that 20mph zones have increased accidents. It's because drivers pay less attention as they're going slowly. Strange but true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives? Interestingly research had shown that 20mph zones have increased accidents. It's because drivers pay less attention as they're going slowly. Strange but true. " As an impatient pedestrian, I am more likely to run across the road than wait for a slow moving vehicle to pass... wonder if that skews the statistics? Also as a driver in a city that has a mix of speed limits from 50 to 20, I spend a lot of my peripheral vision checking what the speed limit is in the current 100yds. Police drivers seem to get very irate when I drive at 10mph whenever there is a police car behind me...  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives? Interestingly research had shown that 20mph zones have increased accidents. It's because drivers pay less attention as they're going slowly. Strange but true. " That's true, covered by a TV programme recently, and why some local councils are beginning to remove the accompanying speed humps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives? Interestingly research had shown that 20mph zones have increased accidents. It's because drivers pay less attention as they're going slowly. Strange but true. That's true, covered by a TV programme recently, and why some local councils are beginning to remove the accompanying speed humps." Studies have shown that traffic calming measures cause more deaths through COPD than the lives they are trying to save. Exactly the same brake and acceleration caused by traffic calming is required to overtake a cyclist on a narrow road and hence a cyclist not using a cycling path causes more pollution rather than reducing it. Not to mention long queues of traffic travelling in low gear stuck behind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives? Interestingly research had shown that 20mph zones have increased accidents. It's because drivers pay less attention as they're going slowly. Strange but true. That's true, covered by a TV programme recently, and why some local councils are beginning to remove the accompanying speed humps." There's a distinct difference between speed being the cause of accidents and speed causing an accident to be fatal. Kinetic Energy being directly proportional to the square of velocity etc etc. I'm more for reducing the cause of accidents. The authorities are just concerned whether its a fatality or not from a statistical point of view. If a person spends the rest of their lives in a permanent vegetative state or as a quadriplegic that's just a fender bender to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives? Interestingly research had shown that 20mph zones have increased accidents. It's because drivers pay less attention as they're going slowly. Strange but true. That's true, covered by a TV programme recently, and why some local councils are beginning to remove the accompanying speed humps. Studies have shown that traffic calming measures cause more deaths through COPD than the lives they are trying to save. Exactly the same brake and acceleration caused by traffic calming is required to overtake a cyclist on a narrow road and hence a cyclist not using a cycling path causes more pollution rather than reducing it. Not to mention long queues of traffic travelling in low gear stuck behind." what studies?. Not a single death in the UK has ever been accredited to copd, caused by traffic calming measures?? Leave a link to these 'studies'. Got a feeling 98% of 'studies' are pulled directly out of someone's ass. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed by cyclists pedalling too fast? There have been 2 convictions in recent years in England that I'm aware of. As opposed to hundreds of motorists, cyclists and pedestriansee killed in accidenta where excess speed was a factor. Let's face it if we all drove around at 20 mph there would be far less road deaths. So why not make the speed limit 20 and save lives? Interestingly research had shown that 20mph zones have increased accidents. It's because drivers pay less attention as they're going slowly. Strange but true. That's true, covered by a TV programme recently, and why some local councils are beginning to remove the accompanying speed humps. Studies have shown that traffic calming measures cause more deaths through COPD than the lives they are trying to save. Exactly the same brake and acceleration caused by traffic calming is required to overtake a cyclist on a narrow road and hence a cyclist not using a cycling path causes more pollution rather than reducing it. Not to mention long queues of traffic travelling in low gear stuck behind. what studies?. Not a single death in the UK has ever been accredited to copd, caused by traffic calming measures?? Leave a link to these 'studies'. Got a feeling 98% of 'studies' are pulled directly out of someone's ass. ""The 98-page document, published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, outlined plans for reducing roadside levels of nitrogen dioxide, which have soared in recent years. Many cities in the UK now breach legal pollution limits, and tens of thousands of deaths each year are linked to air pollution." https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/speed-bumps-disappear-uk-roads-air-pollution-government-plan-emissions-councils-remove-a7862811.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fspeed-bumps-disappear-uk-roads-air-pollution-government-plan-emissions-councils-remove-a7862811.html "Speed bumps could disappear from UK roads as part of Government plan to tackle air pollution" Google is your friend. There's hundreds of articles on the subject. Or. Continue flaunting your ignorance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
