Phoenix
Established Member
OK, but was there an ASL at that junction?
What is an ASL?
OK, but was there an ASL at that junction?
Out of interest, how many of the 'experts' on this thread have passed their cycling proficiency?
I'll start off the list myself by saying I have.
Ridiculous! You admit it's not their fault, so why don't you blame the people whose fault it is then, and ask them to correct their bad behaviour instead of asking cyclists to give up their rights?
Which is why dangerous overtaking should NOT be done. So why don't you have a go at the people who do it instead of having a go at cyclists?:roll:
...
Cyclists are the problem? No, it's the dangerous motorists who overtake in contravention of the Highway Code are the problem.
Do you think that the cars that gridlock my city on a daily basis making average speeds about walking pace should do the same and pull aside to let cyclists past? Or is that "different"?
No, it's illegal and a totally daft suggestion. cyclists have the right to use the road, and you can't deny that right.
Do you respect that right? You just said they should be on the pavement in some places!
Why is the solution for cyclists to go on the pavement? Surely the solution is to stop these "dangerous morons" from driving?
Oh dear, not that again! As I said before, there is no "road tax" and no "fares" to use the road! There is vehicle excise duty, and it is chargeable based on emissions, but old vehicles and emergency vehicles are exempt. The 'greenest' cars pay nothing.When it comes to the idea of cyclists using the road well if they so badly want to why don't they pay road tax also because if you lot so badly want to use the road and shut the motorists up then pay the exact fares we do to use it.
trucks are the worst.
When it comes to the idea of cyclists using the road well if they so badly want to why don't they pay road tax also because if you lot so badly want to use the road and shut the motorists up then pay the exact fares we do to use it.
Out of interest, how many of the 'experts' on this thread have passed their cycling proficiency?
I'll start off the list myself by saying I have.
are you just anti-cyclist?
I like bikes to be honest I own one and stick to the pavement just because im happier there so I'm not anti-cycle
Not at all; I just asked a question - which you ignored!Yorkie are you just Anti me? because I really get that impression as It does look like you have completly written me off as a human due to my road rage.
It is reasonable to "expect no incidents to happen" if you are just riding along a road sensibly, is it not?.... I am sick of cyclists banging on about how they deserve rights and what not when they just plonk themselves onto the road with hardly any speed and expect no incidents to happen.
Well that isn't what happened according to your original posts on the subject, which indicate that you initiated it by making a comment to him to which he responded.And now apparently when cyclists start verbally abusing someone on a Mo-ped according to you it's all the non-cyclists fault.
Unless you provide an aerial view of the location and more information about the speeds involved, it is very difficult to judge the original incident, but my main concern is the aggressive beeping that occurred after that, and you indicating you'd be happy to do that again.Im sorry if im going to town on this one but I'll carry on till you start agreeing on some of the important points aka me not starting the situation I was involved in.
I can't exactly work out what happened here. Were you approaching a T junction at which you had to give way? If so, then what is wrong with what the cyclist did, as I can think of plenty of junctions around here where the on-road cycle lane continues right up to the point which you have to stop or give way, on the left hand side.
100 yards is too close at those speeds. The Highway Code says you "MUST NOT" do that. At 20mph the cyclist was about 3 seconds from the junction! To overtake someone that close to a junction if you are then going to be turning left is against the Highway Code. So you were originally at fault (like it or not). Even if you think it is acceptable, the cyclist will not, and understandably so!
I don't see the cyclist did anything wrong if he was along side you though, but if he cut across you then he was wrong, but you didn't originally say this is what happened. You then had a conversation with him which suggests you were along side him. You said you were annoyed that he was "queue jumping" which rather suggests a dispute about queuing rather than any safety concern. So which was it?
OK, well I think the best thing to do is learn from this. Overtaking a cyclist when you have to stop isn't going to get you anywhere quicker anyway.
All road users should take more time to read the Highway Code. I'm not saying everyone should be an expert, but people should be more aware generally.
One rule that a lot of car drivers seem to disregard (and this is nothing to do with cycling) is this one:
Too many cars will either threaten to run people over, beep to scare them, or force the pedestrian to stop as they force themselves in front.
Given how lethal cars can be to pedestrians, that's a very nasty thing for people to do. Yet so many do it!
OK, well I think the best thing to do is learn from this. Overtaking a cyclist when you have to stop isn't going to get you anywhere quicker anyway.
All road users should take more time to read the Highway Code. I'm not saying everyone should be an expert, but people should be more aware generally.
One rule that a lot of car drivers seem to disregard (and this is nothing to do with cycling) is this one:
Too many cars will either threaten to run people over, beep to scare them, or force the pedestrian to stop as they force themselves in front.
Given how lethal cars can be to pedestrians, that's a very nasty thing for people to do. Yet so many do it!
There's some advice to cover this, which you must take:-But as usual its always the drivers fault, with 'speeding' usually the excuse completely ignoring the stupidity of the person walking in front of traffic.
I guess I'm probably right in thinking that the Green Cross Code isn't taught at school any more?
Bikes should be banned. They aren't safe. Either that or give them numberplates and charge them insurance.
same with pedestrians, barcode them
Bikes should be banned. T
But as usual its always the drivers fault, with 'speeding' usually the excuse completely ignoring the stupidity of the person walking in front of traffic.
There's some advice to cover this, which you must take:-
205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.
206
Drive carefully and slowly when
- in crowded shopping streets, Home Zones and Quiet Lanes (see Rule 218 ) or residential areas
- driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into the road
- passing parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans; children are more interested in ice cream than traffic and may run into the road unexpectedly
- needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement
- reversing into a side road; look all around the vehicle and give way to any pedestrians who may be crossing the road
- turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning
- the pavement is closed due to street repairs and pedestrians are directed to use the road
- approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath. Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of room as you drive past
Actually that is also quite shocking, though prevalent. ALL road users are aware the Highway Code exists, and ALL road users (including pedestrians, cyclsts, wheelchair drivers...) should be aware of their responsibilities under it.Well as I Mo-ped user we are not fully aware of the Highway code because we are not tested on it fully....