prosecution for doing 60 in a 60 zone

Astronaughtwannabe

[quote=[Deleted User];68799214]Good idea. They should put it in a book. They could call it the Highway Code, and make learners sit a test on it.

Oh, hang on ...[/QUOTE]

I smell job/ex job sarcasm ;-)

Ebe_Scrooge

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

I smell job/ex job sarcasm ;-)

???


Car54 makes an excellent point - the various speed limits are defined in the Highway Code, which all learners ( and indeed, experienced drivers ) should know. There really is no excuse for not knowing what the different limits are.

AdrianC

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

???

By "job", I think he means "Police".

Car_54

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

I smell job/ex job sarcasm ;-)

No, just ex-driving-instructor sarcasm!

Astronaughtwannabe

Same cynicism I guess...yes Miss Smith do please pull out in the middle of that funeral courtage, they are indeed going slow enough to let you out! (instructor's head in hands)

I once saw/heard that in a passing open window conversation. I bet instructors could write a book.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

???


Car54 makes an excellent point - the various speed limits are defined in the Highway Code, which all learners ( and indeed, experienced drivers ) should know. There really is no excuse for not knowing what the different limits are.

Yes, that would be the one that says that cyclists should be given at least as much room as a car and they are vulnerable road users where special care should be taken.

However, the popular understanding of the rules about cyclists is "skim past their handlebars, blasting horn and abusing them for being in the way so as to teach them how to use the road properly."

Just sayin'

Astronaughtwannabe

To balance that out - cyclists should ride close to the kerb. There's no need to be 6feet into the roadway, that way you'll reduce your chances of getting skimmed (not that I'm condoning that behaviour either).

My cycling proficiency drummed home that the car is superior and failure to accept that fact may lead to a swift and inevitable demise. Rightly or wrongly, there's many a cyclist would still be alive today if they'd heeded that pearl of wisdom.

Retrogamer

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

To balance that out - cyclists should ride close to the kerb. There's no need to be 6feet into the roadway, that way you'll reduce your chances of getting skimmed (not that I'm condoning that behaviour either).

From my experience, not really. If you ride closer to the kerb then vehicles just pass closer because they're too lazy to use the other side of the road instead. Not all, and not most but still more than i'd like.

I always say if a car is close enough to kick, it's too close.

With the keeping close to the kerb, it depends on how the road condition is. If there's drains, build up of dirt / sludge / leaves or just poor condition of the surface then i'd say it's safer to cycle at a fixed distance away from it all, rather than weaving in and out from the gutter constantly and unpredictably trying to avoid the bad bits.

marlot

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

To balance that out - cyclists should ride close to the kerb...

I don't see that in the highway code.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

When taking my motorbike test, I was encouraged to dominate the lane for my own safety, even if I was traveling slower than the cars around me.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

To balance that out - cyclists should ride close to the kerb. There's no need to be 6feet into the roadway, that way you'll reduce your chances of getting skimmed (not that I'm condoning that behaviour either).

My cycling proficiency drummed home that the car is superior and failure to accept that fact may lead to a swift and inevitable demise. Rightly or wrongly, there's many a cyclist would still be alive today if they'd heeded that pearl of wisdom.

You are very out of date. Bikeability teaches taking the lane. By being visibly in the road, cars see you and have to adjust, creeping down the kerb takes you out of the sight line and gives you no where to go.

From experience, you p**s a few more motorists off, but a p**sed off motorist is one who knows you are there. The motorist who is intent on deliberately crashing into a bike is rare, for all the mouth that suggests it is what they have the right to do. The motorist who fails to see a cyclist at the kerb and adjust accordingly is common.

Works the same for riding in groups - as a club we create a group no bigger than a coach but as a group we are highly visible. We rarely cause any significant delay to drivers (and go out off peak) yet we get a lot of abuse - but again an abused cyclist is a cyclist a motorist is aware of, I can live with that.

Strangely, motorists can get past cyclists with a small temporary delay, but when they catch up with a queue of cars that delay them by minutes or hours, they seem quite content to sit there without abusing the people in front who are the ones really slowing their journey down.

Unfortunately, your response also emphasises that you have not grasped the intent of the Highway Code yourself, and that cyclists have an equal right to the road, so QED to my original point.