We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame
Options
Comments
-
gadgetmind wrote: »The highway code doesn't discuss safe and considerate road positioning for cyclists, but you will find this in cyclecraft and other cycle training materials. I again suggest you do some reading.
What the book says in theory, and what people do in practice, are two different things.
I am sure you will agree. Or maybe not.gadgetmind wrote: »That wasn't an argument, it was a correction. If I'd let it stand, people might have thought that 1 metre is a safe passing clearance - it isn't other than at very low speeds.
How can you correct something that is already correct?
There is no minimum distance when overtaking in the UK, so if it is safe to overtake at 1m, it is safe to overtake at 1m.gadgetmind wrote: »Yes, and there are cases where riding defensively to prevent overtaking is exactly the right thing to do.
Fine, I don't have a problem with that.gadgetmind wrote: »I haven't seen any in this thread, which is why I restricted my statements to motorists who appear to be somewhat under-informed.
Me personally, I just think you have a very biased view and no cyclists could do any wrong in this thread.gadgetmind wrote: »Sadly, due to ignorance, some drivers might label as "bad" a cyclist who was actually being safe and considerate while riding to the rule of the highway code and as recommended by cycling training bodies.
When cyclists ride to rule, I have no problem with that.
What I have commented on, is cyclists not riding to rule.
All comments on here seem to suggest that all cyclists ride to rule all of the time, when quite simply they don't.
Please just accept, there are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists too.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Really? It doesn't come across that way, far from it.
That is your defensive attitude. I have said there are bad drivers and bad cyclists.gadgetmind wrote: »It certainly helps, but I don't think it's necessary. Many drivers do seem to understand why cyclists position themselves as they do, but sadly some still insist on trying to push past, with clearances of 1 metre or even less, and thus cause a great deal of danger. Sometimes they add insult to injury by insisting that the cyclist was riding too far from the kerb and thus made a dangerously close pass somehow inevitable.
You just said that overtaking at 1m was safe at lower speeds.
You can add whatever you like and make up your own rules and regulations if it makes you feel better about yourself.0 -
Yes that is an example of poor driving.
But for every example of poor driving, there is an example of poor cycling.
You might as well say 'for every example of children falling off their bike, there's an example of a 747 crashing into the ocean'
One is not equivalent to the other.I am just trying to be the voice of reason.
No, you're getting incredibly defensive at cyclists being anything other than an ignorable hazard, wobbling along six inches away from the kerb at 8mph.This thread is more like a cyclists witch hunt of drivers.
It's only a witch hunt if you think you're the witch. I'm not clear why that is.All cyclists are good.
The only drivers that are good drivers, are those that are actually cyclists.
Got any more strawmen?0 -
What the book says in theory, and what people do in practice, are two different things.
Yes, people can ignore best practice and drive/ride how they choose, but don't you think it's better if they learn what best practice is first?There is no minimum distance when overtaking in the UK, so if it is safe to overtake at 1m, it is safe to overtake at 1m.
While there is no mandated minimum passing distance under UK law, 1 metre is not enough, not safe, will scare cyclists, and will expose them to unnecessary danger. Please don't pass cyclists this close, please don't advise others to do it, and please don't claim that it's safe.
Get out further, much further, as you need to allow for the cyclist dodging or hitting a road defect, or even just being hit by a strong side wind.When cyclists ride to rule, I have no problem with that.
Based on whose interpretation of those rules, yours or those of the various cycling training bodies and books?
Again, I advise you to read up on the subject and also cover a few thousand miles on a bicycle, in both rural and urban areas. You will learn a lot, trust me!I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
So you'd rather be doing 60mph along a road with a number of blind bends with potentially a cyclist round the corner. Maybe this "moron" didn't know the road quite so well as you and was being cautious as a result.
You may wish to think about that..... The last thing this road needs is any more blind bends (I mentioned only one). If there's a cyclist, your going to see them on the approach to the bend. Unless perhaps they'd stopped for a quick break on the apex.
Maybe this "moron" was driving safely, next time i'll ask if he/she saw the sign post and ask if they can tell me what it said.....
But more than likely "safe" is numpty speak, for "I was in autopilot, not paying attention to the road, it's users or the speed limit".“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”
<><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/0 -
Please can we stay on-topic. The title of this thread is "Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame".
As is usual with cycling threads, there is a lot of animosity shown from motorists to cyclists (and in some cases, vice versa) and it has degenerated into pointless arguments about semantics. This does nothing to getting motorists to understand the problems of cyclists and vice versa.
As a car driver and a cyclist I ask again, please stay on topic.
Dave0 -
Before we go back on topic, I have one very important question........
Would anyone like some toast?
“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”
<><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/0 -
You might as well say 'for every example of children falling off their bike, there's an example of a 747 crashing into the ocean'
One is not equivalent to the other.
Does not agree to what the author of cyclecraft has to say:
"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"
Your own comparison is just idiotic.No, you're getting incredibly defensive at cyclists being anything other than an ignorable hazard, wobbling along six inches away from the kerb at 8mph.
I am not at all defensive and have not made any such remark or suggestion. Strawman?It's only a witch hunt if you think you're the witch. I'm not clear why that is.
You are not clear at all.
This thread is clearly a thread where cyclists are here for the sole purpose of complaining about everything that is driving.Got any more strawmen?
Do you? With reference to your quote above.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards