Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:57 pm
by mik
Marv wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:45 pm
I always wear motorcycle boots, trousers and jacket and gloves all of which are all CE rated and very abrasive resistant along with armour at the knee and hips, shoulders, elbows and back and if I'm doing a bit of off roading then I have chest protection too. As well as a full face helmet.
With all that lot, and the aforementioned risk compensation theory, you must ride like a TAUC.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:03 pm
by Mito Man
Whenever I’m doing something quite high risk like riding the quad bike, using a chainsaw, walking through the tools aisle in Lidl, I go bollock nekked. Nothing makes you appreciate how fragile you are when you see your nuts swaying in the wind.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:30 pm
by Ascender
Just seen this, not a good look…
Hugh Bladon, from the Alliance of British Drivers, said Walker should not have used the roundabout - said to be a notorious accident hotspot.
He told MailOnline: 'Neither Walker or the driver are blameless. Walker should have used the safer route provided for him as a cyclist (why do cyclists not use the facilities provided for them?) and he is a clot for wearing dark clothing.
'Cyclists should make sure they are clearly visible at all times. The driver appears to be starting to move to his left, presumably in preparation for taking the next exit.
'With signs everywhere, other traffic to consider and maybe trying to find his way, it is a simple mistake to miss Walker possibly hidden by the A pillar. If I were cycling I would not venture onto that roundabout.'
So yeah, the car driver basically drove in to him, but was maybe just confused by other traffic or road signs. Or maybe even a bit of his car
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:41 pm
by Rich B
In the mountain biking world they've actually managed to flip the narrative completely, now you look a dick not wearing a helmet. I expect it's the association with cooler riders riding bike parks, where helmets are mandatory.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 9:00 pm
by nuttinnew
Ascender wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:30 pm
Just seen this, not a good look…
Hugh Bladon, from the Alliance of British Drivers, said
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 9:05 pm
by Jobbo
Marv wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:45 pm
...Hold on am I that Michelin man you speak of?
Marv, nobody can ever accuse you of being a Michelin man
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:00 pm
by nuttinnew
@ZedLeg Have you looked at the HC yet, or will your ego not allow you? Of course I could post the relevant part, but you'll only believe anything if it comes from you, won't you?
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:41 am
by V8Granite
What’s being presumed is black and white.
The bloke isn’t dead, the driver isn’t dead, they’ve both very possibly learned something and the world keeps on turning.
Maybe the taxi crept forward in the other clip to get a better view of the road, I do that every time I pull out of my street if a car is parked near the corner.
I had one bad crash where a helmet definitely saved me from smacking my head on a kerb, probably wouldn’t have died but a helmet snapped down its length makes me think it would have bloody hurt.
If you don’t put a little effort into riding defensively thought you are a twit. If you over-react due to changes in the road environment which you only have your perspective on, you’re a twit.
If you’re Jeremy Vine, you’re a twat.
Dave!
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
nuttinnew wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 4:08 pm
A nice aid to recovery
Cockapoos can fuck off.
Dave!
You cheeky scamp, you.
He's not on the BBC anymore so didn't have to say "other dogs are available".
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:01 pm
by ZedLeg
nuttinnew wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:00 pm
@ZedLeg Have you looked at the HC yet, or will your ego not allow you? Of course I could post the relevant part, but you'll only believe anything if it comes from you, won't you?
When did I piss on your chips?
I don’t care enough to argue about it, have the win or whatever.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:04 pm
by nuttinnew
You always care enough to argue
Not about any particular cause or subject, but that you're right. Here, you're not - and you know this because you've looked at the HC for something to post against me and not found anything - but you can't handle that, so change tack to say you're not arguing anymore, because then you can say to yourself "he didn't prove me wrong so I win!". Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Highway Code (in this instance, and with yourself more widely). Have another look at the HC. Make life better.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:11 pm
by Mito Man
Looks like some members of this forum are experiencing a strange phenomenon of virtual menstrual synchrony in males this eventide.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:15 pm
by nuttinnew
Mito Man wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:11 pm
Looks like some members of this forum are experiencing a strange phenomenon of virtual menstrual synchrony in males this eventide.
(Looks at thread title) - NO IT DOESN'T
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:09 pm
by Swervin_Mervin
Has Nuttinew been Broccers all along?
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:18 pm
by Beany
nuttinnew wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:04 pm
You always care enough to argue
Not about any particular cause or subject, but that you're right. Here, you're not - and you know this because you've looked at the HC for something to post against me and not found anything - but you can't handle that, so change tack to say you're not arguing anymore, because then you can say to yourself "he didn't prove me wrong so I win!". Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Highway Code (in this instance, and with yourself more widely). Have another look at the HC. Make life better.
That's great. Explain how someone in the main carriageway (in a cycle lane) doesn't have right of way over someone joining the carriageway, as appears to be the point in question.
Because I've tried scraping the HC from both angles and I'm clearly missing something.
Edit: For clarity - I'm genuinely confused, not being a twat about it.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:22 pm
by nuttinnew
Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:09 pm
Has Nuttinew been Broccers all along?
Ooof, you cut me deeply
Ftao teh Merv only; Spoiler
Before you ask me how deeply, let me know where to measure to/from.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
nuttinnew wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:04 pm
You always care enough to argue
Not about any particular cause or subject, but that you're right. Here, you're not - and you know this because you've looked at the HC for something to post against me and not found anything - but you can't handle that, so change tack to say you're not arguing anymore, because then you can say to yourself "he didn't prove me wrong so I win!". Your argument isn't with me, it's with the Highway Code (in this instance, and with yourself more widely). Have another look at the HC. Make life better.
That's great. Explain how someone in the main carriageway (in a cycle lane) doesn't have right of way over someone joining the carriageway, as appears to be the point in question.
Because I've tried scraping the HC from both angles and I'm clearly missing something.
Edit: For clarity - I'm genuinely confused, not being a twat about it.
They’re either an idiot or have decided to fuck with me for some reason, either way *shrug*
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2023 7:19 am
by Jobbo
I’m not even sure what this HC argument is about, but is nuttinnew referring to the cyclist not having right of way to pull out of his lane?
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2023 7:41 am
by 8Ball
I assumed he's trying to point out that technically it's priority, not right of way.
