It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Fuck me, you wouldn't get anywhere in a busy city centre if you stopped whenever it got a bit tight and if you wanted to give the full 1.5 metres.
How about not having a sig at all?
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Highway Code is not law; it might be relevant if there had been a collision in apportioning blame, but there was no collision. I think the police should probably not comment on this sort of rabble-rousing Vine guff.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
1.5m only applies to overtaking, not to passing vehicles going the other way - ridiculous really. It's rule 163.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
It’s just all round awkwardness in London, 80% of the time cyclists are going faster than cars. So you’re probably less than a metre from the kerb anyway and dawdling along, a cyclists comes up and undertakes you, you can’t actually move over to the right anymore because the roads are tight. Next thing you know some cvnt has sent it to Jeremy Vine
How about not having a sig at all?
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
The artist formerly known as _Who_
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Mine was that age and cycling in the road but….
I told him when to stop and go, we talked about where he should be when in the car leading up to it, I talked through everything I was looking at when cycling and it was dry on a relatively low traffic area.
Rules are rules but there is no reason to be the right person in the morgue. I think the car was fine because as soon as you teach people to expect something they become less aware.
Dave!
I told him when to stop and go, we talked about where he should be when in the car leading up to it, I talked through everything I was looking at when cycling and it was dry on a relatively low traffic area.
Rules are rules but there is no reason to be the right person in the morgue. I think the car was fine because as soon as you teach people to expect something they become less aware.
Dave!
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Would you have let them do it on a suburban London street where most of the drivers will not be local to that area, many looking at social media rather than the road ahead, and the remainder focused on 20mph cameras that now go off at 23mph?
I was riding on the road in the 1980s at the age of 5, but my kids will be staying on the pavement for a while longer (6 1/2 and 4 1/2 now).
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Oh, lols. Can anyone still see the original tweet?
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
It was a video of one of these vigilante pretend policeman types carelessly cycling into opposing traffic to tell off some woman who was blatently using her phone. And then a follow-up video of him doing it again *to the same woman* an hour later.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
Always screenshot, then respond.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
The roads we do it on have much fewer obstacles to navigate.Jimexpl wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 3:22 pmWould you have let them do it on a suburban London street where most of the drivers will not be local to that area, many looking at social media rather than the road ahead, and the remainder focused on 20mph cameras that now go off at 23mph?
I was riding on the road in the 1980s at the age of 5, but my kids will be staying on the pavement for a while longer (6 1/2 and 4 1/2 now).
I don’t agree with cycling on pavements near us though as they are too narrow.
Dave!
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
This just popped up in my feed. Sounds like CyclingMikey from YouTube.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
He blocked me. What a bell.
Re: It’s time for another forum cycle/vehicle disagreement
I have re-twatted his twattery. Follow me bro. Like n share etc.