Dangerous cyclists

[Bassman62]

Eh? How does that answer relate in any way to my posts? Are you going at any point in this thread make your point in a reasoned and intelligent manner? We are trying to tease out of you an opinion on what YOU would do when faced with a cyclist or motorist that doesn't indicate around an obstruction. It happens, it's not right and we aren't arguing about that. But it does happen, so what do you do? Anticipate the move and wait, or double overtake? Tell us bassman62 - what do YOU do?

I've never discussed what I would do as that is not what this topic is about which is:- Dangerous cyclists.

My point being that most cyclists fail to follow the Mirrior(Look behind), Signal, Manoever. as per the Highway Code

So please stick to topic.

[mattleonard]

That is not the issue here the thread title is: Dangerous cyclists

Which is what I'm replying to and not motorists which you are free to start another topic on if you wish.

 

Except that, whilst the behaviour of the cyclist in your example was wrong, it was not the biggest source of danger. That was you.

[Bassman62]

No - I, and I'm pretty sure everyone else who has posted against you doesn't think that's alright. But you seem to think that you not checking whether a manoeuvre is safe before doing so is alright - you therefore see the motorist (or perhaps just yourself) as outside of the law, Highway Code and commonsesnse (whatever that is).

See reply 322.

[Tony]

I've never discussed what I would do as that is not what this topic is about which is:- Dangerous cyclists.

My point being that most cyclists fail to follow the Mirrior(Look behind), Signal, Manoever. as per the Highway Code

So please stick to topic.

 

The cyclist poses no danger at all if the motorist is obeying the Highway Code.

 

Isn't that right?

[Bassman62]

Except that, whilst the behaviour of the cyclist in your example was wrong, it was not the biggest source of danger. That was you.

How do you know that? This topic is not about my driving but about:- Dangerous cyclists so please stay on topic and my actual replies.

[Cyclone]

All the way through this topic my point has been about cyclists who pull out to go round parked vehicles or obstacles without following the basic Mirror, Signal, Manoever procedure if that bis to much to expect then I think that this is due to them not having to take a profficiency teast as well as having not studied the Highway Code.

We can prove this logic to be flawed very simply though.

First, and fascetiously, cycles don't have mirrors.

Secondly, multiple cyclists who hold full driving licenses admit to not looking when moving out to pass a parked vehicle, so clearly a proficiency test would not alter that, we are all proficient, it is not always necessary to check.

Thirdly - we all know full well that you do no do MSM when passing a parked car, your refusal to answer the simple questions is incriminating you perfectly. The reason for trying to establish this is to then point our your hypocrisy, but I think we can just point it out anyway. You drive worse than most cyclists cycle, you have no grounds for complaint you hypocrite.

I've even seen cyclists mount the pavemant to pass parked vehicles etc. now if you think that this is alright along with not signaling their intentions then I have nothing more to say to you as you and certain others see cyclist outside of the law, Highway Code and commonsesnse.

You also break the law and the highway code, you know it, we know it, why do you think you can hold cyclists to a higher standard than yourself?

[Cyclone]

That is not the issue here the thread title is: Dangerous cyclists

Which is what I'm replying to and not motorists which you are free to start another topic on if you wish.

 

It's entirely relevant, you're obsessed with a particular manoeuvre, and a particular rule, as a motorist it seems relevant to find out whether you are actually competent yourself.

[Bassman62]

The cyclist poses no danger at all if the motorist is obeying the Highway Code.

 

Isn't that right?

So you're saying that the section from the Highway Code that I posted earlier about cyclists and monoevering is a wasted time.

[Cyclone]

I've never discussed what I would do as that is not what this topic is about which is:- Dangerous cyclists.

My point being that most cyclists fail to follow the Mirrior(Look behind), Signal, Manoever. as per the Highway Code

So please stick to topic.

 

MSM isn't a legal requirement though is it. It's guidance. Mirrors are important in a car, hearing is a valid replacement to a look behind on a bike, unless you're car is magically silent. And if you do an advanced motoring qualification you'll be taught not to signal unless necessary. It's not necessary when staying in your carriageway and going around an obvious obstruction. Unless the idiot behind expects you to drive or cycle into it.

[Bassman62]

It's entirely relevant, you're obsessed with a particular manoeuvre, and a particular rule, as a motorist it seems relevant to find out whether you are actually competent yourself.

nothing to do with my competence this topic is about :-Dangerous cyclists.

It's the bit above where it says Message:

and the bit below:- Title: