Pushbikes on pavements

[altus]

That is quite possibly the biggest load of self invented cycle talk ive heard. Not one single motorist ive spoken to this evening has ever even dreamed that a cyclist rides like that to discourage anyone from passing. And as for it being recommended by the Government, well that too is a bit misleading, as their Highway Code rule 169 reads as follows;

 

169

Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.

 

I said it before, and I will say it again. Cyclists really do make the rules up as they go along, and their sheer tunnel vision attitude is dangerous for all concerned. You ride like a pillock, im afraid you get all what you deserve.

 

From Cyclecraft (fourth edition) page 88.

 

The primary riding position should be you normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasise your position to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely.

 

 

Because the primary riding position can result in some inconvenience to following drivers, it is reasonable to ride futher to the left when this could help others, so long as your own safety is not thereby impaired.

 

Highlighting as in the book.

 

The primary riding position is in the centre of the left most moving traffic lane, the secondary riding position is 1 metre to the left of that but no closer than 0.5 metres to the edge of the road.

 

In case you don't know, Cyclecraft is the recommended course book for the government cycle training scheme and is required reading for cycle training instructors.

[altus]

It is not too bad if they are kids - I would rather them be on the path than on the road - especially with their clear lack of road sense!

They'll never learn any road sense if they don't ride on them.

[EasyRida]

Another anti-cycling thread on the Sheffield forum? Surely not.

 

Yawn!!

[EasyRida]

Of course it was

 

Maybe it was, do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

[gnvqsos]

A bit of thread but i have been to watch the Clowne half marathon this morning and to hear the motorists shouting at officials because they had been delayed for a few min was disgusting.

One lady! with more chins than a chinese phone book actualy got out of her people carrier and started shouting at the runners.

 

Was her name Wun Chin Tumani:hihi:,or Hu Jlump WunKow?

[SUPERDREAM]

Its nice to see the crazy cycling fraternity getting together to give feeble excuses for their awful riding skills, and quoting from the "Government Approved Cycle Training Scheme For Lycra Clad Road Bigots" manual (feet on both pedals, balance, and away you go, but there might be cars that get in your way) and post it in such a way that they appear quite normal, but its always gonna be against you when you make silly moves on the road, jump a red light, cycle on the path and cause mayhem to pedestrians or just plainly be a total road hog. Many drivers, like me DO expect the unexpected from some of the pillocks on bikes today, but there are a lot of drivers who dont, and I stand by my belief that if you ride (or post) like a pillock, then its tough poo poo when you come a cropper.

[SUPERDREAM]

From Cyclecraft (fourth edition) page 88.

 

 

 

Highlighting as in the book.

 

The primary riding position is in the centre of the left most moving traffic lane, the secondary riding position is 1 metre to the left of that but no closer than 0.5 metres to the edge of the road.

 

In case you don't know, Cyclecraft is the recommended course book for the government cycle training scheme and is required reading for cycle training instructors.

 

Is this The Highway Code?? The book from which road laws are statuted??

Nope, its a bike training manual, similar to an intruction booklet for a DVD remote control. Insignificant. Would I selloptape a table to the roof of my car because it was in The Beano?

 

If you are grabbing at straws to validate why a lot of cyclists are asreholes on the road, google cycle bloopers. Its about as believable as most of the anti-motorists on here. Total crap.

 

Laws are laws, and if you cant abide by them because you think you are riding safely, then catch a bus and help wipe out the "minority" of cyclists who dont care about the problems they cause.

[altus]

Is this The Highway Code?? The book from which road laws are statuted??

Nope, its a bike training manual, similar to an intruction booklet for a DVD remote control. Insignificant. Would I selloptape a table to the roof of my car because it was in The Beano?

 

If you are grabbing at straws to validate why a lot of cyclists are asreholes on the road, google cycle bloopers. Its about as believable as most of the anti-motorists on here. Total crap.

 

Laws are laws, and if you cant abide by them because you think you are riding safely, then catch a bus and help wipe out the "minority" of cyclists who dont care about the problems they cause.

The highway code isn't "The book from which road laws are statuted??" - the law is defined by the relevant legislation. The highway code is just a guide to that legislation.

 

In your incoherent ranting you are suggesting that the official government cycle training scheme manual is going to offer advice that is against the law. How likely do you think that is?

 

However, as you're so keen on The Highway Code, splodgeyAl gave a link to what it says about road positioning for cyclists in post 77.

[SUPERDREAM]

The highway code isn't "The book from which road laws are statuted??" - the law is defined by the relevant legislation. The highway code is just a guide to that legislation.

 

In your incoherent ranting you are suggesting that the official government cycle training scheme manual is going to offer advice that is against the law. How likely do you think that is?

 

However, as you're so keen on The Highway Code, splodgeyAl gave a link to what it says about road positioning for cyclists in post 77.

 

The Highway Code is the official road user guide for Great Britain. It contains 306 numbered rules and 9 annexes covering pedestrians, animals, cyclists, motorcyclists and drivers. This is the ultimate written guide that is backed up by the law in the UK. Not cyclemonthly, lycraweekly or makeuprulesasIgoalong bi-monthly. And if you have a look at your cycle chummys photo, the car is on the "inside" of the white lines.

There are many textbooks and leaflets given out to individuals and groups that are recommended by the Government, but these cannot overwrite anything from the highway code. If it says your causing a tailback, PULL IN, because that is the law, whether you like it or not. It is now you that is making the case for cyclists a bit silly if you think your cycling proficiency test is more powerful in a court of law than the Highway Code. Its not rocket science to see this. Have another look at it, then read the definition. You fall into a slow moving vehicle catagory, and that is excactly what you are. Me and many others dont want to cause grief to cyclists, but your definitions make this unavoidable.

[splodgeyAl]

Many drivers, like me DO expect the unexpected from some of the pillocks on bikes today, but there are a lot of drivers who dont, and I stand by my belief that if you ride (or post) like a pillock, then its tough poo poo when you come a cropper.

That's nice to know of you, and I agree with your 2nd point, which is why most cyclists don't behave like that.

 

However, as you're so keen on The Highway Code, splodgeyAl gave a link to what it says about road positioning for cyclists in post 77.

Probably why it was not responded to