To be precise they don't especially apply to cyclists.
I did say It applies to ALL road usersINCLUDING , but especially, cyclists!!!!
I added especially cyclists because they dont know what the red part of a traffic light means. Unless you've seen a lot of cars just go straight through red lights without even stopping to look if anything else, other cars or pedestrians, is coming along, like most cyclists do?
and the other day we were driving and the woman cyclist in front of us just stopped peddling on a 30mph road. How bloody stupid is that.
Perhaps you could point to the section of the highway code that says you must continue to peddle furiously. Unless it was uphill, the bike was unlikely to instantly grind to a halt. No different to taking your foot off the accelerator.
OR, maybe think that rather than riding up the arse of cyclists as if that will somehow make them go faster, drivers might just want to leave a bit of space so when, *shock horror* they stop pedalling for a bit, it isn't something considered worth posting on the internet.
It genuinely baffles me how anybody in a motor vehicle could ever find a law-abiding cyclist to be more than a mild irritant for a few seconds.
I dunno what it's like in places like London or Birmingham now but it'd probably need to be like downtown Beijing before there were enough cyclists to genuinely impede a car driver.
had yet another one in front of me tonight.lost my temper and slightly nudged him as i was going past.thought he was going to fall off but he managed to stay on.have to admit it gave me a bit of satisfaction seeing him in the mirror shouting at me.if more people did that,then there'd be less of them on the road getting in the way.
Best ignore this one - he's obviously trying to get a reaction to what is a completely idiotic suggestion, that someone who for whatever reason is legitimately using the road is in effect fair game for being seriously injured or even killed. I really can't accept that there really are people in the UK who would deliberately attempt to endanger someone's life purely on a mode of transport. No-one would; all you need to do is to consider the consequences of 'slightly nudging' someone who is quite likely someone's husband, father, brother, son, maybe a Scout leader or someone who just helps out and is one of those decent folk who just exists.
No. I can't seriously imagine that anyone would be so ridiculously stupid or vile enough to attempt to inflict injury on a fellow human being, based purely on that person's mode of transport at a given time. That would be the mark of a complete imbecile surely.
had yet another one in front of me tonight.lost my temper and slightly nudged him as i was going past.thought he was going to fall off but he managed to stay on.have to admit it gave me a bit of satisfaction seeing him in the mirror shouting at me.if more people did that,then there'd be less of them on the road getting in the way.
I'm pretty sure you just admitted to a crime that you could potentially go to jail for. Nice one.
Best ignore this one - he's obviously trying to get a reaction to what is a completely idiotic suggestion, that someone who for whatever reason is legitimately using the road is in effect fair game for being seriously injured or even killed. I really can't accept that there really are people in the UK who would deliberately attempt to endanger someone's life purely on a mode of transport. No-one would; all you need to do is to consider the consequences of 'slightly nudging' someone who is quite likely someone's husband, father, brother, son, maybe a Scout leader or someone who just helps out and is one of those decent folk who just exists.
No. I can't seriously imagine that anyone would be so ridiculously stupid or vile enough to attempt to inflict injury on a fellow human being, based purely on that person's mode of transport at a given time. That would be the mark of a complete imbecile surely.
No. I can't seriously imagine that anyone would be so ridiculously stupid or vile enough to attempt to inflict injury on a fellow human being, based purely on that person's mode of transport at a given time. That would be the mark of a complete imbecile surely.
I think there's a difference between someone pretending to be a hard man/letting off steam on the internet and actually doing it in real life, but there's no shortage of idiot, angry drivers out there. Probably its not pre-meditated; when they calm down and tell their wife about their journey home, they feel a bit of a **** about it, but there are plenty of people out there willing to use their vehicle as a weapon.
(was just googling for examples: google even predicted the term "using vehicle as a weapon" before I finished it :eek: )
had yet another one in front of me tonight.lost my temper and slightly nudged him as i was going past.thought he was going to fall off but he managed to stay on.have to admit it gave me a bit of satisfaction seeing him in the mirror shouting at me.if more people did that,then there'd be less of them on the road getting in the way.
had yet another one in front of me tonight.lost my temper and slightly nudged him as i was going past.thought he was going to fall off but he managed to stay on.have to admit it gave me a bit of satisfaction seeing him in the mirror shouting at me.if more people did that,then there'd be less of them on the road getting in the way.
It genuinely baffles me how anybody in a motor vehicle could ever find a law-abiding cyclist to be more than a mild irritant for a few seconds.
I dunno what it's like in places like London or Birmingham now but it'd probably need to be like downtown Beijing before there were enough cyclists to genuinely impede a car driver.
If it is a narrow country lane with a lot of bends.
You should only really overtake if the road is clear but if you did that, sometimes you could be stuck behind a cyclist for hours or about half an hour, if it was my road home. It's too narrow for two cars in places.
The highway code allows cyclists to ride 2-abreast.
It also says that drivers should give cyclists as much room as a motor vehicle when overtaking -- in other words, on a single-lane road, move over to the other side. So 2-abreast shouldn't be any more of a problem than single-file if you follow the highway code.
I think you have been rather selective in your interpretation of the Highway code. Yes, the highway code does allow for cyclists to ride two abreast (or rather - the wording is that you shouldn't ride more than two abreast). However it also states that you should ride in single file on narrow roads, round bends and on busy roads.
Rule 66 - You should
*keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
*keep both feet on the pedals
*never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
Is would therefore seem that for the majority of country roads, single file would be the preferred option, given that they aren't particularly wide, and tend to have a lot of bends in them (they are like that round may way at least).
Continuing to assert that you have committed a serious criminal offence.
Suppose the cyclist had died, what would your defence have been "Oh, it was only a nudge." Notwithstanding it really isn't feasible to nudge a cyclist, rather you knock them off with potentially fatal consequences.
If find the whole "stuck behind a cyclist" unconvincing. Where and when does this happen?
Does it happen more often that being stuck behind someone doing 35 in a 60 or behind a tractor or other large slower vehicle (which happens often where I live)?
Will the OP, 'nudge' the car at 35 to get it to go faster?
That's where the useless, untrained elements of the motoring and pedestrian variety should be - i think there's generally an element of jealousy from the non cycling community who have difficulty mounting a bicycle without squeezing all the air out of the rear tyre.
Sounds a bit much to expect all pedestrians to be trained in how to handle cyclists on the pavement. Does the Highway Code contain guidelines for them to follow in this situation? They could start an advertising campaign to help train schoolkids to avoid cyclists on the footpath and not to hold them up when crossing at red lights so they don't have to shout at the pedestrians to hurry them along.
Alternatively the cyclists could give way to the pedestrians just as motorists should keep an eye out for cyclists.
I'm glad the OP is prohibited from driving on the pavement. I wouldn't like to encounter him as a road user either.
Cyclists are fine apart from when they run red lights. I almost had a cyclist go into the side of the car I was driving as he decided to run a red, who then had the audacity to stick his middle finger up. That irked me. Also as a pedestrian in Covent Garden the other day when I was walking across the zebra crossing and a cyclist refused to stop. Cyclists have as much right to use the roads as drivers, but some need to learn the Highway Code also applies to them.
I think you have been rather selective in your interpretation of the Highway code. Yes, the highway code does allow for cyclists to ride two abreast (or rather - the wording is that you shouldn't ride more than two abreast). However it also states that you should ride in single file on narrow roads, round bends and on busy roads.
Rule 66 - You should
*keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
*keep both feet on the pedals
*never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
Is would therefore seem that for the majority of country roads, single file would be the preferred option, given that they aren't particularly wide, and tend to have a lot of bends in them (they are like that round may way at least).
Yes, but that's nothing to do with traffic that's flowing with you, perhaps with the exception of busy roads.
For narrow country roads, my interpretation is roads whose entire width is a single lane, with occasional passing points. So the reason you ride single-file on those is not for ease of overtaking, but for ease of cars passing you in the opposite direction.
The same goes for on bends - it's to avoid problems with oncoming traffic, because I'm pretty sure that overtaking on a bend isn't exactly encouraged.
It genuinely baffles me how anybody in a motor vehicle could ever find a law-abiding cyclist to be more than a mild irritant for a few seconds.
I dunno what it's like in places like London or Birmingham now but it'd probably need to be like downtown Beijing before there were enough cyclists to genuinely impede a car driver.
...or an organised cycle...whatever you call them, where a queue maybe a 1/2 mile long with riders variously 1, 2, 3 or 4 abreast, without giving drivers free space to overtake and filter behind other cyclists, on a busy single-carriage way, averaging 12mph, over a distance of some 8 miles.
They can be ****ing irritating.
If the organisers arranged for cycles to travel in distinct cells they'd make it safer for the cyclist.
If the organisers arranged for cyclists to give consideration for other road users, they'd make it safer for the cyclist.
Comments
I did say It applies to ALL road users INCLUDING , but especially, cyclists!!!!
I added especially cyclists because they dont know what the red part of a traffic light means. Unless you've seen a lot of cars just go straight through red lights without even stopping to look if anything else, other cars or pedestrians, is coming along, like most cyclists do?
it was in fading light and i was going too fast for him to see the number plate.he was busy trying to keep the bike from falling over anyway.
fading light is even more of a reason to be a responsible driver, and not trying to nudge people off of bikes.
no cctv.it was a country road.
Perhaps you could point to the section of the highway code that says you must continue to peddle furiously. Unless it was uphill, the bike was unlikely to instantly grind to a halt. No different to taking your foot off the accelerator.
OR, maybe think that rather than riding up the arse of cyclists as if that will somehow make them go faster, drivers might just want to leave a bit of space so when, *shock horror* they stop pedalling for a bit, it isn't something considered worth posting on the internet.
It genuinely baffles me how anybody in a motor vehicle could ever find a law-abiding cyclist to be more than a mild irritant for a few seconds.
I dunno what it's like in places like London or Birmingham now but it'd probably need to be like downtown Beijing before there were enough cyclists to genuinely impede a car driver.
Best ignore this one - he's obviously trying to get a reaction to what is a completely idiotic suggestion, that someone who for whatever reason is legitimately using the road is in effect fair game for being seriously injured or even killed. I really can't accept that there really are people in the UK who would deliberately attempt to endanger someone's life purely on a mode of transport. No-one would; all you need to do is to consider the consequences of 'slightly nudging' someone who is quite likely someone's husband, father, brother, son, maybe a Scout leader or someone who just helps out and is one of those decent folk who just exists.
No. I can't seriously imagine that anyone would be so ridiculously stupid or vile enough to attempt to inflict injury on a fellow human being, based purely on that person's mode of transport at a given time. That would be the mark of a complete imbecile surely.
I think there's a difference between someone pretending to be a hard man/letting off steam on the internet and actually doing it in real life, but there's no shortage of idiot, angry drivers out there. Probably its not pre-meditated; when they calm down and tell their wife about their journey home, they feel a bit of a **** about it, but there are plenty of people out there willing to use their vehicle as a weapon.
(was just googling for examples: google even predicted the term "using vehicle as a weapon" before I finished it :eek: )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17063165
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Using-car-weapon-puts-Llanelli-motorist-jail/story-15634541-detail/story.html
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/1674017?UserKey=
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-driver-jailed-for-using-car-as-a-weapon-1.894496?referrerPath=/ne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-ED8jAaLF8
but sorry, all this stuff is getting us away from the bigger problems on roads. Cyclists delaying motorists for 30 seconds.
Total lack of subtlety lets you down.
Troll or w.u.m......you choose
Bollocks did you.
You should only really overtake if the road is clear but if you did that, sometimes you could be stuck behind a cyclist for hours or about half an hour, if it was my road home. It's too narrow for two cars in places.
yes i did.suit yourself if you dont belive.
I think you have been rather selective in your interpretation of the Highway code. Yes, the highway code does allow for cyclists to ride two abreast (or rather - the wording is that you shouldn't ride more than two abreast). However it also states that you should ride in single file on narrow roads, round bends and on busy roads.
Rule 66 - You should
*keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
*keep both feet on the pedals
*never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
Is would therefore seem that for the majority of country roads, single file would be the preferred option, given that they aren't particularly wide, and tend to have a lot of bends in them (they are like that round may way at least).
Suppose the cyclist had died, what would your defence have been "Oh, it was only a nudge." Notwithstanding it really isn't feasible to nudge a cyclist, rather you knock them off with potentially fatal consequences.
Does it happen more often that being stuck behind someone doing 35 in a 60 or behind a tractor or other large slower vehicle (which happens often where I live)?
Will the OP, 'nudge' the car at 35 to get it to go faster?
That's fine. Either you're a liar, or you're a criminal arsehole. Suit yourself.
Mind either way I think the OP is doing more than anyone to create sympathy and understanding for cyclists.
Blatant liar. Probably threatens to beat people up on youtube comments too, all from his bedroom at his parents house
Alternatively the cyclists could give way to the pedestrians just as motorists should keep an eye out for cyclists.
I'm glad the OP is prohibited from driving on the pavement. I wouldn't like to encounter him as a road user either.
For narrow country roads, my interpretation is roads whose entire width is a single lane, with occasional passing points. So the reason you ride single-file on those is not for ease of overtaking, but for ease of cars passing you in the opposite direction.
The same goes for on bends - it's to avoid problems with oncoming traffic, because I'm pretty sure that overtaking on a bend isn't exactly encouraged.
...or an organised cycle...whatever you call them, where a queue maybe a 1/2 mile long with riders variously 1, 2, 3 or 4 abreast, without giving drivers free space to overtake and filter behind other cyclists, on a busy single-carriage way, averaging 12mph, over a distance of some 8 miles.
They can be ****ing irritating.
If the organisers arranged for cycles to travel in distinct cells they'd make it safer for the cyclist.
If the organisers arranged for cyclists to give consideration for other road users, they'd make it safer for the cyclist.
we use country roads and ride early Saturday and Sunday morning to avoid busy times
We also now have to use head cameras and record because of the amount of times people have tried to kill us.
Luckily we have two police officers who ride with us which helps.
Can you explain why you are in such a rush to get to the garden centre
why the people nearlly killing us are nearly always fat!