I will knock you out ! BBCs Jeremy Vine films woman driver`s shocking road rage

Head_The_Ball

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Yeeeess.....because that is exactly what I mean. :wall:

You seem to have no concept of manners and courtesy.

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

...Nonsense...

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Utter tosh!

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

WOW!

Talk about paranoia. :eek:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Head_The_Ball

brat wrote: »

Often there's a clue in the name for places you're allowed to use your mode of transport.

You airplane should be used in the air. Motorways are for motor vehicles. Pedestrians on footpaths, submarines under water, etc etc.

I wonder where I should use my road bike?

Game, set and match to Brat.

RichardD1970

prowla wrote: »

Yes, yes, common sense.

Nice selective reading of the HC, though, but perhaps I could refer you to Rule 160 "keep to the left".

But I'm having trouble finding it, so can you point out where the Highway Code mentions "Prime Position", please?

Oh no, not again.

Is the the "all encompassing" rule that applies to everybody (except those it doesn't)? :wall:

:rotfl:

hugheskevi

I think the Institute for Advanced Motoring have quite a sensible position on this (article link here):

Duncan Pickering, cycling manager at road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motoring (IAM), said:

"A bicycle is a vehicle on the road and a person riding it has the right to act like any other person on the road.We all hear of cases where someone gets too close to the left and there are very unfortunate consequences if a lorry driver doesn't see them.'Some motorists think it is a divine right to be moving at whatever speed they want and a cyclist is holding them up. I'm afraid it is tough if a cyclist holds them up. In most urban areas traffic moves slowly so a cyclist doesn't hold up traffic."

Still, I doubt opinion from motoring experts will persuade those who know better

brat

prowla wrote: »

Yes, yes, common sense.

Nice selective reading of the HC, though, but perhaps I could refer you to Rule 160 "keep to the left".

But I'm having trouble finding it, so can you point out where the Highway Code mentions "Prime Position", please?

Heh, can't believe you trotted this one out again. This argument of yours was completely destroyed the last time you tried it out. Are you a glutton for punishment?

prowla

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Here you go rule HC 160

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

Note. 160 is not actually aimed at bikes, and includes an exception about passing parked vehicles.

Cyclists are covered by rules 59-82 which does not include anything about staying to the left.

No you won't find anything about prime position in the HC, as it is a term used by cyclists to describe the position you really should take under certain conditions, which are generally, when you are in danger of being clobbered by someone opening a door without looking (happened to me once, but I won't let it happen again) or to make sure someone does not overtake you on a narrow road or pinch point, where they can only do so by breaking rules 163 & 212.

Although not found in the HC riding in prime position under the circumstances I described above breaks no HC rules.

Ah, but the other rules apply to bikes too; from the HC:

Using the road (159 to 203)

The Highway Code rules for using the road, including general rules, overtaking, road junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and reversing.

It states the rules for using the road, and makes no exceptions.

So yes, the so-called "Prime Position" (a) contradicts the keep-left rule and (b) is not in the HC and is thus not something other road used may (or should) be aware of; this can make using the road more dangerous and/or stressful for them, as they are driving to a different & unofficial set of rules.

In general, road use requires a bit of common sense; this requires all users to behave courteously towards each other (as the particular driver whom is the subject of the OP wasn't); this includes both (i) cars overtaking sensibly and (ii) cyclists not deliberately holding them up.

RichardD1970

prowla wrote: »

Ah, but the other rules apply to bikes too; from the HC:

It states the rules for using the road, and makes no exceptions.

So yes, the so-called "Prime Position" (a) contradicts the keep-left rule and (b) is not in the HC and is thus not something other road used may (or should) be aware of; this can make using the road more dangerous and/or stressful for them, as they are driving to a different & unofficial set of rules.

In general, road use requires a bit of common sense; this requires all users to behave courteously towards each other (as the particular driver whom is the subject of the OP wasn't); this includes both (i) cars overtaking sensibly and (ii) cyclists not deliberately holding them up.

Do we really have to go through all this again?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5312935

esuhl

prowla wrote: »

So yes, the so-called "Prime Position" (a) contradicts the keep-left rule...

No, it doesn't. You should still keep left in the primary position. On a two-lane single-carriageway, the primary position involves cycling in the centre of the LEFT lane.

prowla wrote: »

... and (b) is not in the HC and is thus not something other road used may (or should) be aware of; this can make using the road more dangerous and/or stressful for them, as they are driving to a different & unofficial set of rules.

Absolutely. Motorists often lack the training and awareness to know how to safely drive amongst cyclists, horse-riders, etc. The Highway Code and driving tests should be updated so that drivers are taught the skills necessary to drive safely.

The infrastructure needs to change too. Roads were designed without a thought for cyclists, bringing cyclists and motorists into conflict. Our road infrastructure is outdated and in need of an overhaul.

Cycle paths need to be safe to ride on and connected so that cyclists want to use them, so that traffic of different speeds is segregated where possible. If we could achieve that, it would even be reasonable to ban cyclists on many trunk roads. (Come on -- you'd like that, surely?!)

And through-motor-traffic needs to be reduced in residential areas and town centres so that people can enjoy public spaces again. Our village is choked with traffic trying to save a minute or two over taking the bypass. The shops, bars and cafes are empty. It's grimy, noisy, polluted, dangerous for the elderly residents in the "assisted living" flats when they're trying to go for a walk. The whole centre could be pedestrianised as the bypass is a mere 50 metres away with access at both ends of the village. But shopkeepers insist that the 8 parking spaces right outside their shops are enough for the village to suffer perpetual gridlock, lest they should lose any passing trade.

With a few (major) tweaks to the road system, we could make our towns and villages nice places to be, segregate motorists and cyclists (to an extent), and be speaking Dutch in a few years. It'd be great for everyone!

prowla wrote: »

In general, road use requires a bit of common sense; this requires all users to behave courteously towards each other (as the particular driver whom is the subject of the OP wasn't); this includes both (i) cars overtaking sensibly and (ii) cyclists not deliberately holding them up.

Of course.

brat

Prowla, you were told last year that this rule was the first rule of the old Highway Code. Keep to the left is the general instruction to motorists in this country to indicate that we drive on the left side of the road - not on the right.

Revisit your embarrassing thread from last year and try to understand what this rule is saying. If you were to interpret it so rigidly to mean that you should keep to the left of your lane in all but the prescribed exceptions, you would be advocating an extremely unsafe style of driving.

You were schooled on the primary cycling position last year too. Is your memory so short?

prowla

esuhl wrote: »

No, it doesn't. You should still keep left in the primary position. On a two-lane single-carriageway, the primary position involves cycling in the centre of the LEFT lane.

That's not what it says; the HC says keep left, but does not mention the left lane of a single carriageway.

There are times where it is eminently sensible to hold the centre of the lane (eg. Where in the Vine video there were parked cars at the side), and others where it serves no purpose other than to impede the people behind (eg. Where a log gap in the parked cars opened up).

esuhl wrote: »

Absolutely. Motorists often lack the training and awareness to know how to safely drive amongst cyclists, horse-riders, etc. The Highway Code and driving tests should be updated so that drivers are taught the skills necessary to drive safely.

The infrastructure needs to change too. Roads were designed without a thought for cyclists, bringing cyclists and motorists into conflict. Our road infrastructure is outdated and in need of an overhaul.

Cycle paths need to be safe to ride on and connected so that cyclists want to use them, so that traffic of different speeds is segregated where possible. If we could achieve that, it would even be reasonable to ban cyclists on many trunk roads. (Come on -- you'd like that, surely?!)

And through-motor-traffic needs to be reduced in residential areas and town centres so that people can enjoy public spaces again. Our village is choked with traffic trying to save a minute or two over taking the bypass. The shops, bars and cafes are empty. It's grimy, noisy, polluted, dangerous for the elderly residents in the "assisted living" flats when they're trying to go for a walk. The whole centre could be pedestrianised as the bypass is a mere 50 metres away with access at both ends of the village. But shopkeepers insist that the 8 parking spaces right outside their shops are enough for the village to suffer perpetual gridlock, lest they should lose any passing trade.

With a few (major) tweaks to the road system, we could make our towns and villages nice places to be, segregate motorists and cyclists (to an extent), and be speaking Dutch in a few years. It'd be great for everyone!



Of course.

I cant particularly disagree with that.

(Except the Dutch - that is an ugly language!)