Another police numpty
 

Who doesn't know the highway code

https://youtu.be/kbmWRBtkKuM

:lol1:

How good are you at the Highway Code?

That video underneath supposedly showing what cyclists can/cannot do is utter tosh. It states that two abreast is safer, as 8 people cycling single file make for a long obstruction (20 metres). Eight cyclists around here takes up a hell of a lot more than 2 1/2 meteres each. Any sensible group would leave gaps between groups making it safer for all.

I live in an area where cycle races are staged that is overrun by cyclists inbetween races. I am sick and tired of making allowances for incompetent wannabe racers who have no regard for their safety "because it is their right to cycle there". I am sure it is their right, as it is mine to drive there (in fact I have to, as it's the only way to get to my house).

Many of them don't even look after their own lives, expecting all other road users to do it for them. I do my best to make sure they are ok, but I am no miracle worker. So cycling at 40+ mph downhill on a single track road round a bend may no be a good idea...especially where the tractors touch the banks on both side.

Don't get me wrong - I have cycled for decades, but always felt my safety was my responsibility. I always appreciated other road users' consideration, but never felt it was their job.....

Darn sight better than the copper who after several minutes of reading the book in front of the cyclists mis interprets the rule 66. :D

Your comments mainly have nothing to do with the original point. Riding in smaller groups is not for your benefit, if there is insufficient space or visible safety up the road, you wait behind the cylists until it's clear to pass on the other side of the carriageway.

Should cyclists pay some sort of road tax and insurance?

I ask because years ago, a teenager on a racing bike was coming down a one way street the wrong way, and went smack into the side of a relatives car as they were manoeuvring out of my drive.
Their parents did pay up, but it was very costly for them

I thought you could take out some form insurance , iv never bothered myself

I also think the new generation cyclist should NOT rely/push their road rights , purely on the basis being more vulnerable

I was commenting on the video below the article in the original link, making the logical assumption that your link contained your point. I was unable to comment on the original video, as it has been pulled. Perhaps it would be an idea to post a link that contains the video that was the bit that illustrated your "point".

FYI - I do wait behind the cyclists until it is safe to pass....it's just a very long wait when 8 cyclists create a continuous obstacle of over 40 feet long.

So sorry to have invaded your thread. I didn't realise it was private. I will bow out and you can have this topic all to yourself again.

its been private video from the start as far I can tell

What numpty posts a link that does not work?
:D

I've heard the video has been pulled, probably by the policeman was overly embarrassed by his amateurish attempt to lecture a few members of the public :lol1:

You ooze impatience about having to wait a small period of time to pass vulnerable road users. Do you rant when delayed by a slow moving tractor with trailer?

See updated link. Original one pulled.

There has been no road tax since what 1937. Vehicle excise duty.

If there were, cycles are zero emission and don't damage the highway at all, so zero cost. Re insurance most have a either insurance from club/British cycling membership or even through house insurance.

VED/road tax

mate, its the same fecking thing!

Noi it's not, duty raised isn't ring marked for roads whether repair or new roads. It's central and since it's based these days on emissions, cyclists are zero rated. I don't what your point is. Cycles have a legal right to be used on the road, cars are only allowed under licence

The most irritating thing about that video (after the professionally misinformed cop, obviously) was the stupid music playing in the background. What kind of manners do people have these days that they don't turn their radio down when they're having a conversation with someone? :freak3:

Rule 66:
"never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

That road looked busy to me.

Here is full rule 66

Rule 66

You should

• keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
• keep both feet on the pedals
• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
• not ride close behind another vehicle
• not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
• be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.

Should is a guide not to enforce must

They were riding 2 abreast on what I could see not congested road. Fully complying with rule 66.

You're right the road was not congested, but clearly you could see it was busy and fast flowing. But as you point out, "should" is a guide, not an enforcement, something to remember when considering the space given by some motorists when overtaking cyclists two abreast for example. :lol1:

Did they have bells fitted?

it's still a 'tax"

A tax which a hypothetical 3-tonne all-electric 4x4 would be completely exempt from paying. What is your point?

I did say I wouldn't post again on here, but that statement has so much that's wrong in it that I felt duty bound.

Most of what I observe is from a slow moving vehicle and in almost every occurence it is when I meet oncoming cyclists. Despite the rather bad behaviour of some of the cyclists, I bear them no ill will and do everything in my power to make sure they stay alive. I suffer no impatince at all, for the simple reason that quite often.........



.........I am the one driving the tractor!!!


(stupid boy :Whatever_)

Currently with your description £310 per year

Yes cars are taxed. I get that bit, they damage the road and pollute the atmosphere, and regrettably kill thousands and injure tens of thousands every year.

I think you were trying to ask why cycles don't have VED?

I explained they were not, with a right given in 1835. In today's current pricing they are still exempt, but seen as these don't apply. I trying to grasp what point you're making.

If you could please?

I still sense an undertone of resentment that a few poorly behaving riders have skewed your opinion. I see why you complain of two abreast now driving a slow tractor which will be only slightly faster than a pack of riders, so your frustration builds because you'll have little opportunity to pass safely.

Living in Surrey where its wonderful cycling country you need to respect all road users and are equal in right to use the road network, however cyclists are extremely vulnerable when vehicle drivers don't obey the basic and simple safety margins when coming across riders on the road.

A knowledgeable Policeman once describe how to overtake a cyclists, exactly the same way you overtake a horse and rider, slow right down, don't get too close from behind and pass as wide as you can get on the other side slowly until completely passed.

If you cant do this don't overtake at all-wait

It's only illegal to sell a bike without one afaik

Most road users pay in some shape or fashion to use the road.