adamf Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The numerous long threads on this forum full of people moaning about parking charges aren't full of cyclists. And every bike you see on the road into town is one more parking space available. ---------- Post added 24-03-2014 at 09:55 ---------- What a load of c**p the above two posts are! - Typical of the "if you don't agree with me you are wrong" brigade Bonjon demonstrates his intelligence by being unable to formulate an argument and merely resorting to insult. Enough said. I respect altus' arguments, although believe they are very wrong. (1) Road tax was initially introduced to build and maintain the road network. Abolished in 1937 by that famous loonie leftist, Winston Churchill. Now so much revenue is collected from motorists that there is a huge surplus over what is spent on roads. This goes into the general "pot". The cash used to build and maintain roads is distributed, by the central government, to councils and the Highways Agency to perform the work. How do cyclists contibute to that? I would also guess that most council tax payers are not cyclists but are motorists, and would object to their taxes being spent on facilities for non-contributory adults (ie: cycle lanes). How about pedestrians? Should they have to pay extra charges for crossings? ---------- Post added 24-03-2014 at 09:57 ---------- (2) The highway code clearly states that cyclists should ride in single file. Maybe you should actually read the Highway Code? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I think it makes a lot of sense, seeing as we drive on the left here in the UK. I think that people who join motorways havent ever heard of this either, as they usually just join into the motorway flow at whatever speed they like. Also undertaking is illegal for vehicles, unless you stay in lane, and not filtering, yet cyclists can undertake and filter. It does seem a pretty senseless thing to do, especially as most cyclists are motorists, apparently. Some pulling out of a side road would be to your right. Hence why I didn't think it was very sensible. Undertaking is illegal, filtering is not. Cars can't really filter though since they're too large. Filtering is not senseless, sitting in a queue of traffic would be senseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamf Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 As a cyclist I'd say that you were in the right. You've looked which is correct and signalled. It's up to the filtering cyclist to be aware of vehicles that are signalling to go left. I wouldn't pass or try to pass on the inside of a vehicle indicating left, it's a really stupid and dangerous thing to do. I agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodnreeluk Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 66 never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 So you accept that your earlier statement "(2) The highway code clearly states that cyclists should ride in single file." Was in fact wrong? And are you aware of the comments from the home secretary regarding riding on the pavement? (Why they didn't just change the law I'm not sure). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let-cyclists-go-on-pavements-if-roads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I always thought that the rules on British roads included to saying "Always give priority to vehicles to your right". I may be incorrect, but im sure that is the law. If it is, surely any claim from an undertaking cyclist would be incoherent? Thats not a snipe at riders, but is it the law? The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. jb . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodnreeluk Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 So you accept that your earlier statement "(2) The highway code clearly states that cyclists should ride in single file." Was in fact wrong? And are you aware of the comments from the home secretary regarding riding on the pavement? (Why they didn't just change the law I'm not sure). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let-cyclists-go-on-pavements-if-roads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html No - it states "and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends". I would not be in the slightest interested if they were riding 6 abreast on an EMPTY road. It is on busy roads (ie roads with other traffic on them) that concerns me. By what right do cyclists think they can ride 2, or more, abreast and hold up other road users. Try travelling at 10 mph on a 30 road in a car and hold everyone up and you would soon get pulled. The home secretary's comments do not count in law. Anyone can make a comment and be quoted. When and if the law is changed is when comments are legitimised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 You being on the road does not make it busy. It takes more than just "other traffic" for it be busy, quite clearly. Cyclists two abreast use up a single lane, much like most vehicles. If you cannot overtake 2 cycles abreast then you cannot legally overtake a single cycle. The fact that you don't understand this is concerning, given that you presumably are allowed to drive. The home secretary is the ultimate boss of the police, if he tells them not to prosecute cyclists for cycling on the pavement, then despite the law saying it is a crime it is one that will no longer be enforced. It has in effect been decriminalised in a very lazy fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodnreeluk Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 You being on the road does not make it busy. It takes more than just "other traffic" for it be busy, quite clearly. Cyclists two abreast use up a single lane, much line most vehicles. If you cannot overtake 2 cycles abreast then you cannot legally overtake a single cycle. You do write some c**p!. To follow your argument to its logical conclusion you are effectively saying you can't legally pull out to overtake a parked car (about the same width as 2 cyclists riding side by side). We are never going to agree on this so why don't you just get on your bike and disappear from this thread. I will do the same - in my car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 You do write some c**p!. To follow your argument to its logical conclusion you are effectively saying you can't legally pull out to overtake a parked car (about the same width as 2 cyclists riding side by side). We are never going to agree on this so why don't you just get on your bike and disappear from this thread. I will do the same - in my car. No. He's saying you are legally required to pull out as far to overtake two cyclists riding side by side, or even one riding in the correct position[1], as you would to overtake a parked or slow moving car/tractor/bus/etc. See Highway Code rule 163 - especially that picture. [1] The correct position being as taught in the government's cycle training scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.