Dangerous cyclists

[Eater Sundae]

They don't need to in any of the cases mentioned above as they all have signs.

 

You raise an interesting point, though.

 

Anybody know what is the "official" requirement with regard to ensuring one knows the meaning of signs / indications introduced after one passed one's test?

 

I'm straight on 'tinternet any time I see a new road thing but that's, simply, because I don't like not knowing stuff.

 

I wonder what the standard reaction of the closed minded is to a new marking ... I would suspect, given the responses of the two antagonists above, that they just don't notice it.

 

Same here.

 

Edit: I've had a full licence for nearly 40 years. In that time I've bought probably 2 or 3 Highway Codes as new ones have come out. (So, probably not everytime - I don't know how many there have been, but the odd times I've seen news references to new ones, then I've bought them). Now I've got a link to it on favourites.

 

I've also done internet research into the legalities of cycle lighting (although I'm not much wiser)

 

More edit. Other than that, my only extra learning comes from what I happen to hear on the news or read in papers, car mags or cycle mags.

[altus]

You raise an interesting point, though.

 

Anybody know what is the "official" requirement with regard to ensuring one knows the meaning of signs / indications introduced after one passed one's test?

It's your responsibility to keep up to date with current legislation. Consider - you are still required to keep to the current laws regarding lighting fires in your garden and you don't even have to pass a test to be allowed to do that.

 

In practice that used to mean you should buy new copies of the Highway Code as they come out. These days you can look on the internet to get the information.

[mattleonard]

This topic is about :-Dangerous cyclists do you have difficulty with that?

 

Oh irony of ironies. I've just discovered about the funniest thing ever. For those who don't know, Bassman62 first reported the incident which keeps rearing its head in a post nearly three years ago, and I've just found it. I'd encourage everyone to take a look and to take particular note of the thread title.

[Squiggs]

Oh irony of ironies. I've just discovered about the funniest thing ever. For those who don't know, Bassman62 first reported the incident which keeps rearing its head in a post nearly three years ago, and I've just found it. I'd encourage everyone to take a look and to take particular note of the thread title.

 

Can't be the same person

 

After all, he'd never go off-topic and start levelling accusations of poor cycling in a thread about poor and dangerous driving

[Eater Sundae]

Oh irony of ironies. I've just discovered about the funniest thing ever. For those who don't know, Bassman62 first reported the incident which keeps rearing its head in a post nearly three years ago, and I've just found it. I'd encourage everyone to take a look and to take particular note of the thread title.

 

Absolutely priceless.

[Eater Sundae]

Oh irony of ironies. I've just discovered about the funniest thing ever. For those who don't know, Bassman62 first reported the incident which keeps rearing its head in a post nearly three years ago, and I've just found it. I'd encourage everyone to take a look and to take particular note of the thread title.

 

Does this mean I've now got to read through this old thread to see if Bassman told us whether or not he signalled before passing a parked vehicle?

[meshuga]

Does this mean I've now got to read through this old thread to see if Bassman told us whether or not he signalled before passing a parked vehicle?

 

Not at all, if he has any gumption or balls about him he'd just answer the questions directly posed to him on this thread. It is clear so far that he has neither. Well found ES, bassman already lost significant proportions of credibility posts and posts ago. Now it appears he is stripped of that which remains!

[Eater Sundae]

Not at all, if he has any gumption or balls about him he'd just answer the questions directly posed to him on this thread. It is clear so far that he has neither. Well found ES, bassman already lost significant proportions of credibility posts and posts ago. Now it appears he is stripped of that which remains!

 

Not me, we have to thank Mattleonhard for this.

[meshuga]

Not me, we have to thank Mattleonhard for this.

 

Ah well, take the praise for just being a considerate road user instead and providing intellectual debate. I'm battling on a few threads tonight and losing track. Well found Mattleonhard, credit where it is due!

[Guest sibon]

Hypothetical question. (not aimed at anyone in particular - just to allow people to review their own attitudes)

 

You are driving down a one way street when a cyclist comes the other way.

 

What do you think?

 

What do you do?

 

 

Not hypothetical for me. It happened this evening as I drove down Westbourne Road. Westbourne Road is one way from the junction with Southbourne Road, down to Brocco Bank. The bottom is clearly marked with "No Entry" signs. There is no contraflow for cyclists.

 

What did I think? : Another cyclist is ignoring the one way restrictions. This time they can't harm me. A few months ago, one nearly ran into me because I only checked the legal direction of traffic before crossing the road. I'd best avoid him, but I'm not happy with his actions.

 

What did I do?: I gave him ample room to continue with his journey. As I passed him, I slowed down and politely pointed out that the street was one way and that he was going in the wrong direction.

 

Then I went about my business. People like him give cyclists a bad name. It happens a lot on that stretch of road. It isn't any further to go to Southbourne Road and ride up there, just like the cars do.