Suicidal Cyclists !!

chaser said:
Mostly the reason I never intend going back to Holland with the mh, they are crazy
Click to expand...

It might appear that way at first (was in amsterdam a few weeks ago and have just about got over in) but they are relatively safe and segregated from traffic. more bikes than people in amsterdam lol takes some getting used to as a pedestrian!
 
fastpat said:
By riding wide / two abreast on narrow country lanes when it is not safe for other vehicles to overtake you.

So you there you go, I have answered your question, so how about answering some of mine:

When is it illegal to ride abreast and how are the roads paid for?

Or are you just a troll who makes statements not based on any factual evidence?
Click to expand...
Firstly, the personal insults are really not you. Please stick to the topics with your venom. :)

Tootles made a number of untrue statement's, when challenged they failed to substantiate - that's a troll in my book.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I did not make any such statement. I merely asked a question.

Is it still illegal to ride abreast of another cyclist on the highway?
Click to expand...

I can only think as to the other 'untrue' statements you suggest I have made are:

they neither pay for the privilege of using the highways, nor are they insured.
Click to expand...

Both statements are of course true.

I expect your unreserved apology for your insulting comments by return, please. (y)
 
fastpat said:
By riding wide / two abreast on narrow country lanes when it is not safe for other vehicles to overtake you.

So you there you go, I have answered your question, so how about answering some of mine:

When is it illegal to ride abreast and how are the roads paid for?

Or are you just a troll who makes statements not based on any factual evidence?
Click to expand...

So you are quite happy to contravene road traffic regulations

And you wonder why motorists get pi**ed off with cyclists with people like you around
 
chockswahay said:
I think you are probably outnumbered on this one Larry :eek:

At the size of your rig you are as threatening and as dangerous as an articulated lorry to the cyclists. By establishing their position on the road they did at least force you to consider the safety of when to overtake. They clearly caused you inconvenience but that is an unfortunate bi product of our road system (you were able to overtake them in the end 'tho).

Unfortunately too many drivers lack the spatial awareness to safely overtake cyclists so faced with that their decision was at least the safest

My wife and I cycle and generally we cycle in single file, but (BUT) there are a couple of sections of main road near us when to do so would be VERY dangerous so we ride two abreast to assert our position in the road until it is safe to do otherwise.

I have felt cars and lorries 'brush' past me sometimes on roads and if two abreast is the only way to stop this then so be it!

Normally we ride single file and I imagine the majority of cyclists do.......... but when they don't they probably have good reason.

I am not defending selfishness or stupidity (which many cyclists do exhibit) but I can not agree with the sentiment that says car and lorry drivers are right and cyclists are wrong.

The real issue here is safety :)
Click to expand...

They had not looked behind so did not know the vehicle size especially as the car is narrower and masked by being so close behind the RV.
They also would not believe the vehicle to be large as it is not a noisy truck sounding engine but petrol on lpg and very quiet.
After a while I used horn to warn them of the vehicle size.
We were on a straight stretch of road and safe to overtake, I felt however in the poor conditions that I should warn them and give the opportunity to go single file, they didn't , so I overtook when safe to do so.

I will repeat that we also are cyclists and mostly ride single file following the Highway Code guide.
 
I think its about time all bicycles are registered as a motor vehicle is with a registration plate to be clearly shown.
Said bicycle should be required by law to have basic third party insurance.
Said cyclist should have a "cycling license" after a test pass and if in contravention of road traffic laws issued with points.If the cyclist builds up a certain amount of points in a given time frame they will be banned from cycling for a set period.

As for the "who pays for the roads" don't come out with the i have a car and pay my road fund license on that.
I have two motor vehicles and can only drive one at a time but still have to pay TWO amounts of road fund license.

Ill let you know when im standing for Parliament :)

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
The British isles is not condusive to good safe cycling,poor road layouts, poor junctions,the entire system is not fit for purpose Some motorists are unable to pass cyclists safely,there is a complete lack of understanding of perils faced by cyclists.From my experience lorry drivers and coach drivers are the most considerate,boy racers and people on the school run the worst.Cyclists must also take a fair share of the blame,riding without lights ,suicidal,riding in the gutter,big no,no,2 abreast on unsuitable roads,asking for trouble. I also think that the success of British cycling has a lot to answer for.Many middle aged warriors dressed in black sky lycra,with little or no cycling background,now thinking they are king of the hill.Fifteen years ago, only hardened cyclists were the rule, as we had gone 2 generations with the car as 1st choice.There needs to be a complete rethink before motorists and cyclists exist together.Belgium and Holland have it right,but we are far from that.My take is that we need more consideration from both sides until such time as the roads are safe for all.
 
Tootles said:
Firstly, I did not make any such statement. I merely asked a question.
Click to expand...

The question you asked was "is it still illegal to ride abreast of another cyclist on the highway", as any fool knows it has never been illegal, so I challenged you as to where, or indeed when it was stated as being illegal. A challenge you failed to respond too. Fact.

The second statement you made was "unlike most other road users, they neither pay for the privilege of using the highways, nor are they insured. " again I challenged you as to how the roads where paid for, again you failed to respond. Because as we all know the roads are paid for by general taxation.

So I stand by my original statement. Fact.

And for the record I am insured when I am out out on my bike, unlike the 2M uninsured drivers on our roads, and ask yourself this question 12 stone cyclist or 2 ton car - who is likely to cause the most damage?
 
richr said:
So you are quite happy to contravene road traffic regulations

And you wonder why motorists get pi**ed off with cyclists with people like you around
Click to expand...
Please direct me to which road traffic regulation I am contravening?
 
Well.. If youre blocking a road... Could be without due care and attention.. Uneccesary obstruction perhaps... Or you could just be guilty of having a poor attitude..
 
fastpat said:
The question you asked was "is it still illegal to ride abreast of another cyclist on the highway", as any fool knows it has never been illegal, so I challenged you as to where, or indeed when it was stated as being illegal. A challenge you failed to respond too. Fact.

The second statement you made was "unlike most other road users, they neither pay for the privilege of using the highways, nor are they insured. " again I challenged you as to how the roads where paid for, again you failed to respond. Because as we all know the roads are paid for by general taxation.

So I stand by my original statement. Fact.

And for the record I am insured when I am out out on my bike, unlike the 2M uninsured drivers on our roads, and ask yourself this question 12 stone cyclist or 2 ton car - who is likely to cause the most damage?
Click to expand...
You have still not apologised for your insults. I would expect a gentleman to apologise when he makes an unfounded insulting comment towards another member. I considered you to be a gentleman. For that, I apologise for being sadly wrong. You now also suggest that I am a fool. May I point you in the general direction of Forum Rule 1?

And so to your statement(s).
I see you now acknowledge that my first 'statement' was now a question.

Secondly, Having my wife quite poorly today, I was not on long enough to give your ramblings true consideration, for that, I once again apologise. However, the roads are paid for in this country out of the general exchequer, into which all road users, with the exception of cyclists and road worthy pedestrian electrical vehicles pay into. If I was to make the great error of driving my car without paying the required Road Excise Licence, I would be breaking the law. Cyclists are exempt from paying duty, hence my statement. The insurance statement I made is unchallenged by your good self, I observe, and so I think that can be laid to rest.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
I seem to recall that a town in I think Denmark removed all street furniture including pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and all road marking and there hasn't been a serious incident since. The reason is that no one has priority so won't take the risk by assuming they have
Also I believe that Exhibition Road in West London has its street furniture removed with similar results
 
The charge would be 'obstructing the Queens Highway':) and that could apply to anyone who's slowing down traffic even on a Motorway
 
joncris said:
The charge would be 'obstructing the Queens Highway':) and that could apply to anyone who's slowing down traffic even on a Motorway
Click to expand...
A cyclist taking the primary position, as identified in the official government guidance booklet (oh yes there is one) http://www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/cyclists-why-do-they-ride-in-the-middle-of-the-road-_62617 would not be guilty of any offence under Section 137 of the 1980 Highways Act to which you refer.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
There is no road tax now,the roads are funded out of general taxation,what we pay VED which is a tax on the pollution that we create,that is why some environmentally sustainable vehicles pay nil rate,whilst others pay on a sliding scale depending on their exhaust emissions.Many cyclists are also vehicle drivers,so they also pay tax,but as a bicycle has no emissions,no VED.A responsible cyclist would also have cycle insurance to cover damage and theft to his cycle,and this would also cover damage to 3rd parties.
 
richr said:
Have a read of post number 7 all will become clear (y)
Click to expand...
Highway Code Introduction:

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."

The post you refer to in post 7 is a "should" therefore not to follow it is not illegal - it is an advisory. Don't get me wrong on most occasions when riding with others we will single out to let traffic past, if however it is a blind bend on a narrow road we will not, indeed if riding on my own I will actually ride wide so that the vehicle behind cannot overtake me. The reason I do this is on too many occasions cars have tried to overtake me, met an oncoming vehicle halfway through overtake, moved back in and taken me out, on one such occasion I was hospitalised. The Highway Code should be read in conjunction with other official advice from HM Gov http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/book.html
 
Tootles said:
You have still not apologised for your insults. I would expect a gentleman to apologise when he makes an unfounded insulting comment towards another member.
Click to expand...

BUMP.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Tootles said:
You have still not apologised for your insults. I would expect a gentleman to apologise when he makes an unfounded insulting comment towards another member. I considered you to be a gentleman. For that, I apologise for being sadly wrong. You now also suggest that I am a fool. May I point you in the general direction of Forum Rule 1?

And so to your statement(s).
I see you now acknowledge that my first 'statement' was now a question.

Secondly, Having my wife quite poorly today, I was not on long enough to give your ramblings true consideration, for that, I once again apologise. However, the roads are paid for in this country out of the general exchequer, into which all road users, with the exception of cyclists and road worthy pedestrian electrical vehicles pay into. If I was to make the great error of driving my car without paying the required Road Excise Licence, I would be breaking the law. Cyclists are exempt from paying duty, hence my statement. The insurance statement I made is unchallenged by your good self, I observe, and so I think that can be laid to rest.
Click to expand...

Obviously you are not a A Team aficionado - as any fool would know.

Firstly your "question" was a statement that at some point it was illegal to ride two abreast - I merely questioned as to where your evidence that it had ever been illegal was?

Your second statement has been well and truly answered by the Rebellious 1 but for the avoidance of doubt I repeat it "There is no road tax now,the roads are funded out of general taxation,what we pay VED which is a tax on the pollution that we create,that is why some environmentally sustainable vehicles pay nil rate,whilst others pay on a sliding scale depending on their exhaust emissions.Many cyclists are also vehicle drivers,so they also pay tax,but as a bicycle has no emissions,no VED.A responsible cyclist would also have cycle insurance to cover damage and theft to his cycle,and this would also cover damage to 3rd parties."

Finally I did challenge your question on insurance I stated quite clearly that I was insured "And for the record I am insured when I am out out on my bike, unlike the 2M uninsured drivers on our roads..."
 
fastpat said:
Highway Code Introduction:

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."

The post you refer to in post 7 is a "should" therefore not to follow it is not illegal - it is an advisory. Don't get me wrong on most occasions when riding with others we will single out to let traffic past, if however it is a blind bend on a narrow road we will not, indeed if riding on my own I will actually ride wide so that the vehicle behind cannot overtake me. The reason I do this is on too many occasions cars have tried to overtake me, met an oncoming vehicle halfway through overtake, moved back in and taken me out, on one such occasion I was hospitalised. The Highway Code should be read in conjunction with other official advice from HM Gov http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/book.html
Click to expand...

I dont think you are in a position to decide the manner in which i convey my vehicle along the public highway, i would rather you allow me to make my own decisions.

I think it is quite arrogant for you to believe you have the right to make such judgments

The word SHOULD can be conveyed as an instruction and to not do as you should can be looked upon as an infringement.

The above example you refer to is either poor driving/decision making or the fact you decided to ride your bicycle in the middle of the highway therefore causing a traveling obstruction.
 
fastpat said:
Obviously you are not a A Team aficionado - as any fool would know.

Firstly your "question" was a statement that at some point it was illegal to ride two abreast - I merely questioned as to where your evidence that it had ever been illegal was?

Your second statement has been well and truly answered by the Rebellious 1 but for the avoidance of doubt I repeat it "There is no road tax now,the roads are funded out of general taxation,what we pay VED which is a tax on the pollution that we create,that is why some environmentally sustainable vehicles pay nil rate,whilst others pay on a sliding scale depending on their exhaust emissions.Many cyclists are also vehicle drivers,so they also pay tax,but as a bicycle has no emissions,no VED.A responsible cyclist would also have cycle insurance to cover damage and theft to his cycle,and this would also cover damage to 3rd parties."

Finally I did challenge your question on insurance I stated quite clearly that I was insured "And for the record I am insured when I am out out on my bike, unlike the 2M uninsured drivers on our roads..."
Click to expand...

That will be singled out on ANPR

How does anyone know you have insurance as your bicycle does not carry vehicle identification marks, along with millons of other bicycles
 
Overtake them only when there is a huge puddle to drive through while passing.
See how sexy lycra looks when wet(y)

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Oh dear. It seems that the word 'sorry' is stuck in your throat. Never mind. (y)

My question was a question. If it had been a statement, it would not have had a question mark behind it, as it surely did. I realise that your standard of education is far higher then my own, but even as a lowly student of English Grammar, I do know that you cant answer a question with a question, as you proposed. (y)

If your cycle really did pay Road Excise Duty, or you paid for it, or your cat signed the cheque, then your cycle would have number plates, which it does not.

You say that as an individual you are insured, presumably for third party liabilities. Prove it.:)
 
mjltigger said:
I'm a newbie to this forum but to be honest I think this thread is a poor reflection on the forum as a whole.. can we all calm down a bit....
Click to expand...
Must have missed something. Is someone getting getting decidedly un-calm? :)
 
It seems to me.. That.. On top of my last outburst.. You seem happy to on one hand sing the praises of hm government.. Whilst simultaneously slating them for not jumping when you demand your super duper cycle lane.
Furthermore.. I find your cavalier attitude to deciding how everyone around you should drive quite sad.
.. And
I do admire your ability to duck and dive and avoid any points you're not comfy with/don't have a script for.
Blocking traffic is an offence.. You must not do it. It's obstruction...
There's another offence some of you cyclists probably commit too.. But that only kicks in when someone's injured.. And that's normally the cyclist.. sadly

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top