prosecution for doing 60 in a 60 zone

AdrianC

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

My cycling proficiency drummed home that the car is superior

And roughly when was that...?

Astronaughtwannabe

It's encapsulated in the keep left rule. I tell you what, try driving next to the centre line on a nice wide road during a driving test and you'll end up with a nice bold X for failing to exercise lane discipline/positioning.

It could also be interpreted as uneccesary obstruction contrary to Section 22 of the road traffic act.

Astronaughtwannabe

AdrianC wrote: »

And roughly when was that...?

Early 70s.

AdrianC

IanMSpencer wrote: »

...and that cyclists have an equal right to the road

More or a right, if anything - after all, people require licencing to use a car on the road, a privilege that is heavily restricted and can easily be withdrawn.

AdrianC

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

Early 70s.

So might there be a slight chance that the intervening 45 years has mildly skewed your memory of exactly what you were told?

Astronaughtwannabe

IanMSpencer wrote: »

You are very out of date.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.

Yes, I've seen many of bikabilities victims. I'm sure the oenoushers are absolutely right in their advice, put the cyclist in conflict, make a nuisance of themselves, make themselves a bigger target. It works right?

Oh, lest you forget that cycle fatalities are increasing. Maybe something to do with their wisdom eh?

Nowt like being right when you're dead.

Astronaughtwannabe

AdrianC wrote: »

So might there be a slight chance that the intervening 45 years has mildly skewed your memory of exactly what you were told?

Nope, I'm sure a touch of alcohol has pickled my memories here and there.

You carry on with your belief though.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

Yes, I've seen many of bikabilities victims. I'm sure the oenoushers are absolutely right in their advice, put the cyclist in conflict, make a nuisance of themselves, make themselves a bigger target. It works right?

Oh, lest you forget that cycle fatalities are increasing. Maybe something to do with their wisdom eh?

Nowt like being right when you're dead.

Fundamentally it is attitude, cooperation not conflict. You clearly believe it is a battle out there, more motorists are being taught that it is cooperation. The vast majority of motorists are good cooperative drivers, I'd say 1 in 100 iare a problem.

Anyway, Bikeability is more nuanced than you understand - keep out of the way if it is safe, hold your ground if there is not room for a motorist to safely pass. Creeping along the kerb when passing bollards is a classic way of inviting a car to squeeze through and clip you with a misjudgement or your wobble over a drain cover.

I made the mistake on a hill climb on a narrow lane of keeping left to avoid being provocative, but assuming the Land Rover would see that was no room, but he still went for it, clipping my helmet with his wing mirror. I saw him outside his house about 400 yards up the road. Apparently it was my fault as he could see I was a rubbish cyclist all over the road. Now I stand my ground but as soon as there is a passing place I will drop into it and help them by.


Oops! Started a cyclist flame thread by accident.

AdrianC

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

Oh, lest you forget that cycle fatalities are increasing.

But slower than the total distance travelled on bicycles.

Half the problem is that massive increases in passive safety in cars has not only led to a far greater sense of invincibility amongst drivers, but has also led to much poorer fields of vision. Add to that much greater isolation from the environment.

But many fatalities amongst cyclists, especially in London, are in large part due to timidity - the people being killed are largely women, who tend to be far less aggressive at getting past HGV traffic at lights, then getting away first when the light change. They just pootle up the inside of the wagon, sit in a blind spot, then get squished. Well, that isn't predictable at all...

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

But slower than the total distance travelled on bicycles.

Possibly. But while the fatality figures are absolutely accurate, the distance is, at best, systematised guesswork.