Crossing a double white line to overtake.

angrycrow

Actualy the events described are extremely relevant to the op's original post because it illustrates why the rule is not to overtake a cyclist traveling in excess of 10 mph when there are solid double white lines down the middle of the road.

Manxman_in_exile

Johno100 wrote: »

Well that might be the line some Lycra Taliban infiltrated police forces are trying to push, but that's not what the Highway Code says.

I'm confused. What you've posted seems to illustrate exactly what takman was suggesting?

Johno100

angrycrow wrote: »

The behaviour of the van driver and the ignorance you displayed is actually becoming the norm rather than an exception which is why after 30 plus years of long distance cycling I no longer cycle on the roads, it has simply become too dangerous.

Good decision, it is dangerous out there for vulnerable road users.

Mercdriver

Johno100 wrote: »

Good decision, it is dangerous out there for vulnerable road users.

Consistent with your rancidly ardent anti bike view. Are you related to Kraken?

Motorists are but one of the groups of road users. They are NOT the only ones entitled to use the roads and all others should be able to do so safely. That includes everyone following the rules: including you.

Johno100

Mercdriver wrote: »

Motorists are but one of the groups of road users. They are NOT the only ones entitled to use the roads and all others should be able to do so safely. That includes everyone following the rules: including you.

Did I say otherwise?

Mercdriver

Johno100 wrote: »

Did I say otherwise?

This can be easily read to mean that the road should only belong to 'non vulnerable' users, and you are identifying cyclists as such.

Johno100 wrote: »

Good decision, it is dangerous out there for vulnerable road users.

Johno100

Mercdriver wrote: »

This can be easily read to mean that the road should only belong to 'non vulnerable' users, and you are identifying cyclists as such.

Well that is your interpretation and it's hardly surprising that's the way you read it given your other comments as to how you perceive my views about cycling.

Mercdriver

Johno100 wrote: »

Well that is your interpretation and it's hardly surprising that's the way you read it given your other comments as to how you perceive my views about cycling.

I've seen your previous comments about cyclists in other threads over the last year. I haven't made a snap judgement.

Norman_Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

I do, but councils around here have this nasty habit of putting pinch points aka pedestrian refuges in the most opportune places to pass. I know this is something even the cycling fraternity dislike.

Pinch points are often put in place because of a history of misjudged overtaking on that stretch of road.

Retrogamer

Johno100 wrote: »

Well that might be the line some Lycra Taliban infiltrated police forces are trying to push, but that's not what the Highway Code says.

Always amuses me how much people who dislike cyclists rant on about lycra. You'd think they had some sort of kink or fetish about it.

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

But if the road is clear enough to overtake, why not avoid the cyclist completely and use the other side of the road? It's one of my pet hates when motorist zoom past at 50mph and choose to do so a couple of feet away when the other lane is completely clear.

Likewise.
If i was doing a lot more road i'd be tempted to buy myself one of these.