Cyclists!!!!!

If it's not safe to pass one cyclist while leaving a 1m gap then you shouldn't pass.

The majority of the time this means you should be over the middle of the road with no oncoming traffic. So two cyclists side by side would make no difference as you would just need to be 1.5m further over on the opposite side of the road, which as there should be no oncoming traffic isn't a problem.

The problem arises when people try to squeeze through a gap which is closing rapidly not realising the speed of the rider at times.
 
matt_fsr said:
As a regular commuter cyclist, and off-road MTB'er, (as well as ex-York resident) I feel compelled to leave this here:


Most LOLage can be had from 2:34 onwards a bit :D
Click to expand...

Brilliant shame he didn't snap his neck.

As for that article. Meh, in my experience cyclists do what they want. The sooner the government introduces safe road cycling schemes and mandatory tests the better.
 
majnu said:
Brilliant shame he didn't snap his neck.

As for that article. Meh, in my experience cyclists do what they want. The sooner the government introduces safe road cycling schemes and mandatory tests the better.
Click to expand...

It's a shame someone didn't kill themself? ok :confused:
 
sovietspybob said:
I live in North Wales too and the riding 2 abreast thing does my head in, especially in places like the Llanberis pass (http://goo.gl/e54RMl)
Click to expand...

The irony being that they are not supposed to be allowed to rid two abreast on A roads, they just get away with it due to ambiguous wording in the HWC (it says you cannot do it round corners or on busy roads but doesn't define busy)
 
I'm sorry to say i did laugh quite loudly when that guy faceplanted, he was doing so well upto that point. I dont have a problem with cyclists altho that part of the video where the cycle path is the gutter of the road makes me think that sort of thing must happen a lot as most people forget they have indicators/mirrors.
 
I love cycling, but I'd never do it in a busy city centre in the UK. Way too dangerous, the roads aren't designed for it and too many idiots on the road.
 
ubersonic said:
In north Wales we spend tens of millions developing some of the best cycle routes in Europe (some of which are more direct than the roads). Yet some morons still insist on riding in the road despite the being a better surfaced cycle track feet away because it's "their right"
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with "their right". Most are following the government issued Code of Conduct for cyclists. It's not law, but it recommends that you should avoid cycle paths and use roads instead if you can maintain a resonable speed.
"As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
Click to expand...
 
touch said:
It has nothing to do with "their right".
Click to expand...

Yes it is, the cycle paths are better surfaced, safer and more convenient. The militant cyclists round here use the roads instead (which are worse surfaced, less convenient and more dangerous) entirely because it is "their right" to do so.

They actually get off on the "look at me! I'm on a bike! holding everyone up for no reason!" factor they get by not using the cycle routes. One of them even said to me (I'm a cycalist too) that he doesn't mind getting there slower as long as he gets to put a few drivers in their place.
 
So cyclists should follow the rules you quoted when it suits you (riding 2 abrest) but should also ignore the rules when that suits you (using roads instead of cycle paths)?

You can't have it all your own way...
 
Last edited:
touch said:
So cyclists should follow the rules you quoted when it suits you (riding 2 abrest) but should also ignore the rules when that suits you (using roads instead of cycle paths)?

You can't have it all your own way...
Click to expand...

No because the 2 abreast thing is the law and the the not using cycle paths is a retarded government suggestion. The difference should be obvious.
 
ubersonic said:
No because the 2 abreast thing is the law and the the not using cycle paths is a retarded government suggestion. The difference should be obvious.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
Both are suggestions, neither are law.

Here is a link to the relevant point you are referring to in the Highway Code (point 66).
You'll notice that it isnt a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" on this point, so it's a suggestion rather than a law.

As we all know from reading the highway code:
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’.
Click to expand...
 
MooMoo444 said:
They still don't pay road tax, so they shouldn't be on the road.
Click to expand...

Neither do a surprisingly large percentage of cagers, van men, motorcyclists and 'Ped Kids, yet on the road they remain... Add to that the uninsured, too.

Are horses (or should they be) subject to VED, based on the amount of crap that spills out of *their* exhausts, I wonder...?
 
touch said:
Incorrect.
Both are suggestions, neither are law.

Here is a link to the relevant point you are referring to in the Highway Code (point 66).
You'll notice that it isnt a "MUST" or "MUST NOT" on this point, so it's a suggestion rather than a law.

As we all know from reading the highway code:
Click to expand...

As an electrician, we have this document called BS7671:2011 It is non-statutory document, when prosecuting they will use this document to put you away. It would be up to you to defend yourself as to why you did not follow the guidance of this document such is the way these documents are worded this may or may not be easy to do depending on the circumstance's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom