Driving rants

[DanFST]

It is not illegal to cycle two a breast - the rule 66 etc all advisories etc because you cannot be arrested etc for breaking the law if a cyclist rides two a breast.

I never said it was.

It would be much easier for you to say sorry and admit you are wrong. Then get into the debate of rules vs laws.

 

[Foxholer]

Again you are wrong. The link was off the GOV site rooter posted a minute ago. Rule 66.

Er...No. the would 'should' should be a decent enough clue!

 

[Khamelion]

Why are cyclists arrogant because they ride two a breast ? They have just as much a right on the road as a car.

Why should a cyclist "get out of the way" just because a car wants to get past ?

I agree cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as any car, and they should be punished accordingly when they think it's okay to ride through a red light, when they break the speed limit, when they get into the wrong lane to turn right because it's to busy and/or dangerous for them to make the manoeuvre.

 

[Alex1975]

It is not illegal to cycle two a breast - the rule 66 etc all advisories etc because you cannot be arrested etc for breaking the law if a cyclist rides two a breast.

Cyclists should be able to cycle two a breast but they should drop back when a car is coming.

 

[DanFST]

If I am riding single file on a 60 mph country road with a car approaching me and you come bombing up behind me, you will fly past just (hopefully) missing me.

If I'm riding 2 abreast in the same scenario, you either pull out and risk a head on collision (pretty stupid), hit a cyclist at speed (possible manslaughter) or slow down and wait (the correct option).

I think Alex is right.

Lots of people can't drive. Is it worth it? Sadly some idiot will think he can get past you, there will be less space for everyone and accidents will happen. Through no fault of the cyclist.

 

[Alex1975]

Why would it be?

If I am riding single file on a 60 mph country road with a car approaching me and you come bombing up behind me, you will fly past just (hopefully) missing me.

If I'm riding 2 abreast in the same scenario, you either pull out and risk a head on collision (pretty stupid), hit a cyclist at speed (possible manslaughter) or slow down and wait (the correct option).

That you tell me I should wait makes me want to go... why should I wait for you, you are causing an obstruction to teach me something.

If you are single file I will consider you to the maximum, I will also keep a very close eye on where pot holes are and drain covers as if you have skinny wheels you will need to go round those obstructions. When I can see, having checked that you are not going to have a problem I will pass you and be well on my way.

Not as dumb as it sounds is it? How strange that it can work for us both?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I never said it was.

It would be much easier for you to say sorry and admit you are wrong. Then get into the debate of rules vs laws.

Is said they are not breaking any laws by riding two a breast - you said I'm wrong - im still waiting to see why I'm wrong and which "law" they are breaking

Post #49 is me saying they are breaking no law and post #51 is you saying im wrong

So which law are they breaking to show im wrong ?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Cyclists should be able to cycle two a breast but they should drop back when a car is coming.

Why "should" they ? To please a motorist ?

I would prefer to overtake with a wide berth two a breast to get past them quicker and safer

 

[Imurg]

Glad to see the life being sucked out of a potentially interesting thread.......

 

[Alex1975]

Why "should" they ? To please a motorist ?

I would prefer to overtake with a wide berth two a breast to get past them quicker and safer

I have made it clear... the driver is not going to die in any event! ... read #86.... its not hard!

 

[Alex1975]

Glad to see the life being sucked out of a potentially interesting thread.......

If a post asks people to moan they will moan, it was never going to be anything but this was it!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I have made it clear... the driver is not going to die in any event! ... read #86.... its not hard!

So because the driver is untouchable in his car then cyclists should just get out of their way ?

How about the motorist shows consideration to all users of the road and adjust their mentalilty when reaching cyclists and understand they also have a right to be on the road and to be aware they aren't surrounded by metal and to ensure their maximum safety - even if it means having to sit behind them for an extra minute or so until its safe to overtake giving them clear distance. Then there is no issues.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I have made it clear... the driver is not going to die in any event!

I'm alright Jack

Have you ever considered that for every cyclist on the road there is one less car, causing less congestion for you and more parking spaces when you get into busy town centres etc?

 

[Alex1975]

So because the driver is untouchable in his car then cyclists should just get out of their way ?

How about the motorist shows consideration to all users of the road and adjust their mentalilty when reaching cyclists and understand they also have a right to be on the road and to be aware they aren't surrounded by metal and to ensure their maximum safety - even if it means having to sit behind them for an extra minute or so until its safe to overtake giving them clear distance. Then there is no issues.

I am not getting Phil`ed sorry. Re read the entire thread, its all very clear and very simple. I should consider you going 10 MPH on a road where I can go 60? So what happens when I come round a blind bend going 60 and there your and your mate are side by side? No consideration issue, its a pure accident.... Cyclists just should be more careful. 6 are dead in less than 3 months of this year.... come on. That is someone child, mother, father.... It just does not have to happen.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I am not getting Phil`ed sorry. Re read the entire thread, its all very clear and very simple. I should consider you going 10 MPH on a road where I can go 60? So what happens when I come round a blind bend going 60 and there your and your mate are side by side? No consideration issue, its a pure accident.... Cyclists just should be more careful. 6 are dead in less than 3 months of this year.... come on. That is someone child, mother, father.... It just does not have to happen.

Yes cyclists are killed through the lack of consideration towards them from drivers - you have just made it clear you don't consider them because they go slower than you so should basically get out of your way

Going round blind bends at 60 isn't clever regardless of cyclists - what if there iis a broken down car or an object in the road or a traffic jam or accident already

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I am not getting Phil`ed sorry. Re read the entire thread, its all very clear and very simple. I should consider you going 10 MPH on a road where I can go 60? So what happens when I come round a blind bend going 60 and there your and your mate are side by side? No consideration issue, its a pure accident.... Cyclists just should be more careful. 6 are dead in less than 3 months of this year.... come on. That is someone child, mother, father.... It just does not have to happen.

So you are unaware that you should be able to stop in the distance you can see up the road?

 

[Alex1975]

I'm alright Jack

Have you ever considered that for every cyclist on the road there is one less car, causing less congestion for you and more parking spaces when you get into busy town centres etc?

You are just looking for a fight. You lost the fight as soon as you suggested that cyclists were trying to teach motorists a lesson. I am alright Jack as I am not blowing in the wind trying to teach hard metal objects a lesson... I try to be smarter than that. I have demonstrated in post #86 that I am very aware of the situation and that it does not have to be as hard as you CHOSE to make it.

 

[DanFST]

Is said they are not breaking any laws by riding two a breast - you said I'm wrong - im still waiting to see why I'm wrong and which "law" they are breaking

Post #49 is me saying they are breaking no law and post #51 is you saying im wrong

So which law are they breaking to show im wrong ?

I never said they were riding two abreast. All I said was that it takes the Micheal, which you obviously don't think it does. But it appears you are correct on the laws, apologies. I won't derail this thread any further.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Thread is getting argumentative and petty squabbles are breaking out
Can people please agree to disagree

Thanks

 

[Wildrover]

Why would it be?

If I am riding single file on a 60 mph country road with a car approaching me and you come bombing up behind me, you will fly past just (hopefully) missing me.

If I'm riding 2 abreast in the same scenario, you either pull out and risk a head on collision (pretty stupid), hit a cyclist at speed (possible manslaughter) or slow down and wait (the correct option).

Or if like me you're in a truck which is much wider and accelerates much slower you are stuck behind them forever and a day whilst everyone else is stuck behind me.