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.

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.

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

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!"

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/

"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.

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

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

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

"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.