|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
On 19 Feb, 02:38, "PeterE" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message Instead of making existing roads better for cyclists this scheme will increase the presumption that cyclists have no right to hold up faster traffic by using formerly PUBLIC roads. Umm, cyclists have never had a *right* to hold up faster traffic. The Highway Code states unequivocally that they should allow faster traffic to pass, pulling over if necessary. Direct quote and section number please. I can find no reference to it in the HC as applied to cycling. -- World Carfree Network http://www.worldcarfree.net/ Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Doug (Doug ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Umm, cyclists have never had a *right* to hold up faster traffic. The Highway Code states unequivocally that they should allow faster traffic to pass, pulling over if necessary. Direct quote and section number please. I can find no reference to it in the HC as applied to cycling. That'll be HC168 & HC169, then, Duhg. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
On Feb 19, 9:08 am, Adrian wrote:
Doug (Doug ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Umm, cyclists have never had a *right* to hold up faster traffic. The Highway Code states unequivocally that they should allow faster traffic to pass, pulling over if necessary. Direct quote and section number please. I can find no reference to it in the HC as applied to cycling. That'll be HC168 & HC169, then, Duhg. Another worrying sign that Doug shouldn't be using the roads or a minor mistake...? Fod |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Fod (Fod ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: Umm, cyclists have never had a *right* to hold up faster traffic. The Highway Code states unequivocally that they should allow faster traffic to pass, pulling over if necessary. Direct quote and section number please. I can find no reference to it in the HC as applied to cycling. That'll be HC168 & HC169, then, Duhg. Another worrying sign that Doug shouldn't be using the roads or a minor mistake...? Sshh... I'm waiting for the inevitable "Ha! That doesn't apply to cyclists! Frivolous Hypercriterrorist!" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Adrian typed:
Doug (Doug ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Umm, cyclists have never had a *right* to hold up faster traffic. The Highway Code states unequivocally that they should allow faster traffic to pass, pulling over if necessary. Direct quote and section number please. I can find no reference to it in the HC as applied to cycling. That'll be HC168 & HC169, then, Duhg. He probably doesn't think that applies to cyclists. Which seems prevalent among most cyclists, 'specially those on usenet. -- Dogpoop Stand by me. http://www.glass-uk.org/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
"Adrian" wrote in message
... Fod (Fod ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Umm, cyclists have never had a *right* to hold up faster traffic. The Highway Code states unequivocally that they should allow faster traffic to pass, pulling over if necessary. Direct quote and section number please. I can find no reference to it in the HC as applied to cycling. That'll be HC168 & HC169, then, Duhg. Another worrying sign that Doug shouldn't be using the roads or a minor mistake...? Sshh... I'm waiting for the inevitable "Ha! That doesn't apply to cyclists! Frivolous Hypercriterrorist!" http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070314 I wondered whether he might say that cyclists are not vehicles in phrases such as "if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle". 168 Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you. 169 Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. I'd like to see him claim that cyclists don't need to stop at traffic lights: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_069837 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)] 71 You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178). [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)] Those are backed up by sections of road traffic law so I imagine that failure to comply is an offence. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:34:44 -0000, "Mortimer" said
in : http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070314 Interesting, though, how rules 168 and 169 appear to be interpreted as meaning that rules 162-167 may freely be ignored if the person in front is going slower than you'd like. And this applies to people "holding up traffic" by driving within the speed limit, as well, in my experience. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
On Feb 19, 11:51 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
And this applies to people "holding up traffic" by driving within the speed limit, as well, in my experience. The only time i ever see an exception to the above is motorways when you do get someone wanting by someone going at 70+ but less than the 90-100 that the other driver wanted. Fod |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
Dogpoop wrote:
Adrian typed: Doug (Doug ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Umm, cyclists have never had a *right* to hold up faster traffic. The Highway Code states unequivocally that they should allow faster traffic to pass, pulling over if necessary. Direct quote and section number please. I can find no reference to it in the HC as applied to cycling. That'll be HC168 & HC169, then, Duhg. He probably doesn't think that applies to cyclists. Which seems prevalent among most cyclists, 'specially those on usenet. I know of very few cyclists who believe that. I also can think of very few situations where a cyclist will actually be causing a long line of traffic to form. Cheers, Luke -- Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads.
"Ekul Namsob" wrote in message
news:1ickwjq.i38ice195vdijN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnam ... Dogpoop wrote: Adrian typed: Doug (Doug ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Umm, cyclists have never had a *right* to hold up faster traffic. The Highway Code states unequivocally that they should allow faster traffic to pass, pulling over if necessary. Direct quote and section number please. I can find no reference to it in the HC as applied to cycling. That'll be HC168 & HC169, then, Duhg. He probably doesn't think that applies to cyclists. Which seems prevalent among most cyclists, 'specially those on usenet. I know of very few cyclists who believe that. I have seen several occasions where cyclists have been riding two abreast, with one close to the kerb and the other close to the centre white line (unbroken, so traffic must not cross it) with a large gap between, and I can only interpret it as "we're going to make damn sure no-one overtakes us". The last time I saw it was on the Thame bypass which is wide enough for three cars (one in each direction and one overtaking in one direction) so it's not a case of there being no room to overtake two properly-positioned bikes safely, especially if they move into single file whenever they are aware of traffic that wants to overtake. I also can think of very few situations where a cyclist will actually be causing a long line of traffic to form. It can happen any time there's a moderate level of traffic such that there are no overtaking opportunities because of oncoming traffic and there's a wide vehicle such as a lorry or a bus which cannot overtake unless it goes partly onto the wrong side of the road. In such circumstances when I'm cycling I will usually pull into the nearest farm gateway or similar to let the traffic get past: courtesy costs nothing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 238 | February 20th 08 09:11 AM |
Scheme to ban cyclists from even more public roads. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 211 | February 19th 08 10:03 AM |
More Cyclists on the Roads | oilfreeandhappy | Marketplace | 0 | February 17th 06 01:10 AM |
Are cyclists allowed to race on public roads? | RipVanWinkle | UK | 1256 | June 4th 05 01:41 AM |
A public city bike hire scheme will be launched in Adelaide today | Marty | Australia | 0 | May 22nd 05 01:45 AM |