Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame

gadgetmind

liam8282 wrote: »

Yes, The Highway Code is all lies.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion.

You may be the most perfect cyclist in the world, ride according to The Highway Code in concjunction with Cyclecraft

I do my best.

Your opinion that cyclsists are right, drivers are wrong, is totally biased

Sorry, but you're trying to put words into my mouth. Please don't.

Each of these stories agree to what I said, The Highway Code are the rules, anything else is a guide, advice or a recommendation.

Yes, but you seem to have your own rather unusual interpretation of these rules that isn't shared by the IAM, the CTC, Cyclecraft, or the Department of Transport.

Perhaps you would like to post some more irrelevant stories up for me to read?

Why would I want to do that?

liam8282

savagehoutkop wrote: »

Highway code also says
"Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles"
in the cyclist section.

Yes, but I am distinguishing between riding as far into the road, just because it is the "primary position", and riding into the road to leave plenty of room when passing parked cars, as The Highway Code defines.

savagehoutkop wrote: »

If the road is badly designed and the cycle lane, if there is one, goes past vast numbers of parked cars, it's not possible to cycle in the cycle lane without risking life and limb from a car door opening.

Following The Highway Code, you would "Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles"

savagehoutkop wrote: »

Also, there is a difference between being 'defensive' and being 'incondiserate' and I think all users - both cyclists and drivers - would be vastly better off if all of them were considerate.

I agree.

However, I will add that the difference here is, cyclists call it defensive cycling, BUT, if it doesn't agree to The Highway Code, then by definition it is inconsiderate.

liam8282

gadgetmind wrote: »

Again, you're entitled to your opinion.

I do my best.

Sorry, but you're trying to put words into my mouth. Please don't.

Yes, but you seem to have your own rather unusual interpretation of these rules that isn't shared by the IAM, the CTC, Cyclecraft, or the Department of Transport.

Why would I want to do that?

:shhh: Yawn, ZZZZZZZ.

I could repeat myself, as you seem to be having a hard time understanding and taking in what I have written. But I won't.

Strider590

liam8282 wrote: »

Yes, but I am distinguishing between riding as far into the road, just because it is the "primary position", and riding into the road to leave plenty of room when passing parked cars, as The Highway Code defines.

Primary is also for other situations, like points where the road narrows (pinch points), in order to stop drivers passing too closely...... Most drivers don't give a damn about cyclists, more worried about oncoming objects on the right, than squashing a cyclist on the left.

http://www.youtube.com/results?hl=en&safe=off&q=close%20pass%20pinch%20point&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1&gl=GB

gadgetmind

liam8282 wrote: »

Yes, but I am distinguishing between riding as far into the road, just because it is the "primary position", and riding into the road to leave plenty of room when passing parked cars, as The Highway Code defines.

There are many reasons to use primary position and not just went approaching parked cars. This was discussed in many of the web articles that I provided links to.

However, I will add that the difference here is, cyclists call it defensive cycling, BUT, if it doesn't agree to The Highway Code, then by definition it is inconsiderate.

Which parts of the highway code do you think correct use of the primary position disagrees with?

gadgetmind

liam8282 wrote: »

I could repeat myself, as you seem to be having a hard time understanding and taking in what I have written.

I fully understand what you have written but as it's all contrary to advice from organisations such as the IAM, the CTC, and many more, I find it hard to come to any conclusion other than that you're wrong.

liam8282

Strider590 wrote: »

Primary is also for other situations, like points where the road narrows (pinch points), in order to stop drivers passing too closely...... Most drivers don't give a damn about cyclists, more worried about oncoming objects on the right, than squashing a cyclist on the left.

Yes and cyclists also use primary for no other reason than they read it in a book.

The Highway Code says, when overtaking a cyclist give as much room as you would when overtaking a car. So for arguments sake, if you give 1 metre when overtaking a car, you give 1 metre when overtaking a bike. Same applies to drivers as it does to cyclists, they have to follow The Highway Code too.

If it is safe to overtake, then overtake.

If the cyclist is just riding defensively because they don't want to be overtaken, then that is a different matter.

We could go on all day naming examples of where it is appropriate and where it isn't.

I disagree that most drivers don't give a damn about cyclists. The opposing argument is that cyclists don't give a damn about anybody except themselves.

liam8282

gadgetmind wrote: »

I fully understand what you have written but as it's all contrary to advice from organisations such as the IAM, the CTC, and many more, I find it hard to come to any conclusion other than that you're wrong.

You fail to mention that what I have written, agrees word for word to The Highway Code, which all of your advice is useless, without adhering first and foremost to the rules of the road.

Therefore conclude whatever you like.

custardy

liam8282 wrote: »

You fail to mention that what I have written, agrees word for word to The Highway Code, which all of your advice is useless, without adhering first and foremost to the rules of the road.

Therefore conclude whatever you like.

If the cyclist is just riding defensively because they don't want to be dangerously overtaken, then that is a different matter.

it makes quite a difference

liam8282

custardy wrote: »

it makes quite a difference

Yes adding words does make a difference to a sentence.