Dangerous cyclists

[Bassman62]

I understand it perfectly.

 

Do you understand it as well? Because you should have seen the obstruction as well and be expecting the cyclist to go around it. Unless you think they can fly.

Do you think cyclists can fly

 

Do you understand rule 162 are you only worried about rules that apply to other road users?

Once again which part of this don't you agree with or understand? Re-read the underlined section

•look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do (see 'Signals to other road users')

That is the part where I have issue with many cyclists who do not look behind them or signal their intentions. You can twist this whichever way you choose but I will keep repeating this until you accept that motorists are not ther to think for cyclists.

[Bassman62]

I'm not sure why you'd want to insure the bike against 3rd party liability, it's not likely to be the bike that gets sued... And what happens if you borrow someone elses bike for a day?

What if this, what if that, the whole point is that a bicycle is a vehicle and can cause an accident therfore like most other vehicles travelling on the public highway insurance when doing so should be a requirement.

[Bassman62]

162

 

Before overtaking you should make sure

 

[*]the road is sufficiently clear ahead

 

 

I'll now post the complete section and not just the one line you posted.

162

Before overtaking you should make sure

 

•the road is sufficiently clear ahead

•road users are not beginning to overtake you

•there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake

[Bassman62]

I understand it perfectly.

 

 

But you don't understand the following

 

 

•look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path

•be aware of traffic coming up behind you

[Squiggs]

But you don't understand the following

 

 

•look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path

•be aware of traffic coming up behind you

 

You're ability to quote seems to be greater than your ability to understand.

 

You seem to interpret "be aware of traffic coming up behind you" as meaning that traffic behind has priority. Your interpretation is incorrect. It means what it says. If it meant "cyclists must stop and allow other vehicles to pass before moving out to pass an obstacle such as a parked vehicle" then that is what it would say.

 

Moving out within a lane is not the same thing as changing lanes, but some motorists draw invisible lanes in their mind when they see a cyclist and insist that a cyclist must stay within their incorrectly assigned phantom "lane"

 

Of course cyclists should indicate their intention. Of course cyclists should look and be aware of vehicles behind. Not least because there are poor drivers who apply their own false interpretations of the Highway Code to justify substandard driving and attempts to dominate other legal road users.

 

You seem to be of the opinion that cars are the only true road users and anyone else is a "guest" and should defer to the car in all instances. I've had people try to tell me that to pull out within my lane that I should pull in to the kerb and stop, wait until the road is clear, then proceed. The particular person that ranted this was insistent on overtaking me on the opposite side of the road as I was turning right after signalling for a good 5 seconds previously.

 

Your attitude and flawed interpretation of the HC is very reminiscent of that thuggish, impatient and incompetent driver.

[Tony]

No it means exactly what it says, or don't you understand rule 67.

 

I've posted it again so others will see that you have a problem with understanding written English

 

You plainly don't understand rule 67, why should you expect others to?

[strikerPaul]

Bassman is clearly a baffoon and I'm surprised people are even entertaining him. A forum discussion will never change someone like his opinion.

[denlin]

Originally Posted by dawny1970

i never seen a car mount a pavement, career down to the lights on red, ignore them and carry on!!!!

 

Yes you have. The car driver happened to be on a pushbike at the time.

 

Have you seen cars going through red lights? Most of them won't be cyclists.

 

Do you stop at the amber light every time?

__________________

It's the devil's advocaat innit

 

The post you replied to said they'd never seen a car mount pavement. There was no mention of him suddenly getting out of car and onto pushbike so how would anyone come up with idea that car driver had pushbike? As for part about lights you are allowed to go through on amber if you are so close that stopping would cause problem for other road users but YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO THOUGH AT RED AND MORE CYCLISTS DO THIS THAN CAR DRIVERS BECAUSE THE ONES I'VE SEEN DO IT GO ONTO THE PAVEMENT ROUND THE INSIDE OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND THEN RUN THE GAUNTLET OF THE CAR DRIVERS WHO ARE PROCEEDING PERFECTLY LEGALLY THROUGH THE GREEN LIGHTS IN OTHER DIRECTION

[strikerPaul]

Originally Posted by dawny1970

i never seen a car mount a pavement, career down to the lights on red, ignore them and carry on!!!!

 

Yes you have. The car driver happened to be on a pushbike at the time.

 

Have you seen cars going through red lights? Most of them won't be cyclists.

 

Do you stop at the amber light every time?

__________________

It's the devil's advocaat innit

 

The post you replied to said they'd never seen a car mount pavement. There was no mention of him suddenly getting out of car and onto pushbike so how would anyone come up with idea that car driver had pushbike? As for part about lights you are allowed to go through on amber if you are so close that stopping would cause problem for other road users but YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO THOUGH AT RED AND MORE CYCLISTS DO THIS THAN CAR DRIVERS BECAUSE THE ONES I'VE SEEN DO IT GO ONTO THE PAVEMENT ROUND THE INSIDE OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND THEN RUN THE GAUNTLET OF THE CAR DRIVERS WHO ARE PROCEEDING PERFECTLY LEGALLY THROUGH THE GREEN LIGHTS IN OTHER DIRECTION

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[denlin]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Intelligent response:love: