This give cyclists a bad name.

2

Comments

  • karlth
    karlth Posts: 156
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    diy wrote:
    with regard to the comments about the law (most of which are clueless) - It would help to start by understanding the difference between civil liability for damages, liability for personal injury and road traffic (and other) offences.

    It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway
    Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

    Failure to adhere to the rules of the highway code can be grounds for both careless and inconsiderate driving, it is also the basis of damages settlements in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Most of the rules are backed up by road traffic law anyway.
    You're pretty clueless yourself

    It actually says
    If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

    This does NOT refer to traffic using the road but for example: Hire skips blocking access to footpaths. Is also applicable to farmers/contractors and the like during silage time and spreading muck across roads.

    Do you have case law to support that interpretation? I would think that the phrase "in any way" could include slower moving vehicles building up a queue behind them and not pulling over to let it past.
  • petemadoc
    petemadoc Posts: 2,331
    smidsy wrote:
    Vehicles should give cyclist the same amount of room when overtaking as if it were any other vehicle i.e they should cross the centre line of the road completely.

    If this is applied it is irrelevant if they cycle two abreast or single file.

    ^This is correct, well almost, you don't have to go right across the line but you should be infringing onto the other side

    I cannot believe that on a cycling forum of all places people do not understand this concept :?:

    If you can't overtake riders riding 2 abreast you shouldn't be overtaking a single rider either.

    The lack of understanding of how to drive around cyclists in this country is both incredible and very worrying.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    diy wrote:
    with regard to the comments about the law (most of which are clueless) - It would help to start by understanding the difference between civil liability for damages, liability for personal injury and road traffic (and other) offences.

    It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway
    Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

    Failure to adhere to the rules of the highway code can be grounds for both careless and inconsiderate driving, it is also the basis of damages settlements in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Most of the rules are backed up by road traffic law anyway.
    You're pretty clueless yourself

    It actually says
    If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

    This does NOT refer to traffic using the road but for example: Hire skips blocking access to footpaths. Is also applicable to farmers/contractors and the like during silage time and spreading muck across roads.

    Do you have case law to support that interpretation? I would think that the phrase "in any way" could include slower moving vehicles building up a queue behind them and not pulling over to let it past.
    It's all Here Nothing about cyclists or slow moving vehicles though.
  • mcp73
    mcp73 Posts: 94
    Negativelycra wrote:
    ... All it takes is for some consideration of others, pull in briefly or whatever, and the world is a better place. "us and them" mentality exists on all sides of road users, and IMO those that consider roads as "us and them" - whether they are drivers, bikers, riders, cyclists, walkers or truckers, I don't hold them in anything other than low regard.


    +1
    Courtesy and consideration cost nothing. It's unnecessarily divisive to hold an 'us and them' attitude. We're all people just making our way on shared public highways irrespective of which vehicle we are using.
  • karlth
    karlth Posts: 156
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    diy wrote:
    with regard to the comments about the law (most of which are clueless) - It would help to start by understanding the difference between civil liability for damages, liability for personal injury and road traffic (and other) offences.

    It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway
    Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

    Failure to adhere to the rules of the highway code can be grounds for both careless and inconsiderate driving, it is also the basis of damages settlements in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Most of the rules are backed up by road traffic law anyway.
    You're pretty clueless yourself

    It actually says
    If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

    This does NOT refer to traffic using the road but for example: Hire skips blocking access to footpaths. Is also applicable to farmers/contractors and the like during silage time and spreading muck across roads.

    Do you have case law to support that interpretation? I would think that the phrase "in any way" could include slower moving vehicles building up a queue behind them and not pulling over to let it past.
    It's all Here Nothing about cyclists or slow moving vehicles though.

    Indeed there isn't. Nothing to say the law doesn't include traffic using the road either. Probably more likely to fall under inconsiderate riding though - as the police tried to invoke at Box Hill.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    edited September 2012
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    diy wrote:
    with regard to the comments about the law (most of which are clueless) - It would help to start by understanding the difference between civil liability for damages, liability for personal injury and road traffic (and other) offences.

    It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway
    Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

    Failure to adhere to the rules of the highway code can be grounds for both careless and inconsiderate driving, it is also the basis of damages settlements in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Most of the rules are backed up by road traffic law anyway.
    You're pretty clueless yourself

    It actually says
    If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

    This does NOT refer to traffic using the road but for example: Hire skips blocking access to footpaths. Is also applicable to farmers/contractors and the like during silage time and spreading muck across roads.

    Do you have case law to support that interpretation? I would think that the phrase "in any way" could include slower moving vehicles building up a queue behind them and not pulling over to let it past.
    It's all Here Nothing about cyclists or slow moving vehicles though.

    Indeed there isn't. Nothing to say the law doesn't include traffic using the road either. Probably more likely to fall under inconsiderate riding though - as the police tried to invoke at Box Hill.
    If traffic using a road was to be construed at certain points as an obstruction. It would be in the relevant law.

    It isn't.
  • karlth
    karlth Posts: 156
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    diy wrote:
    with regard to the comments about the law (most of which are clueless) - It would help to start by understanding the difference between civil liability for damages, liability for personal injury and road traffic (and other) offences.

    It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway
    Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

    Failure to adhere to the rules of the highway code can be grounds for both careless and inconsiderate driving, it is also the basis of damages settlements in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Most of the rules are backed up by road traffic law anyway.
    You're pretty clueless yourself

    It actually says
    If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

    This does NOT refer to traffic using the road but for example: Hire skips blocking access to footpaths. Is also applicable to farmers/contractors and the like during silage time and spreading muck across roads.

    Do you have case law to support that interpretation? I would think that the phrase "in any way" could include slower moving vehicles building up a queue behind them and not pulling over to let it past.
    It's all Here Nothing about cyclists or slow moving vehicles though.

    Indeed there isn't. Nothing to say the law doesn't include traffic using the road either. Probably more likely to fall under inconsiderate riding though - as the police tried to invoke at Box Hill.
    If it doesn't exist in LAW then it kind of implies it doesn't exist.

    What exists in law is the statement that "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence" - I cannot see why a slow moving vehicle holding up other traffic and failing to pull over to let it past could not be included in "in any way". A law does not have to detail absolutely every way in which it could be broken.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    diy wrote:
    with regard to the comments about the law (most of which are clueless) - It would help to start by understanding the difference between civil liability for damages, liability for personal injury and road traffic (and other) offences.

    It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway
    Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

    Failure to adhere to the rules of the highway code can be grounds for both careless and inconsiderate driving, it is also the basis of damages settlements in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Most of the rules are backed up by road traffic law anyway.
    You're pretty clueless yourself

    It actually says
    If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

    This does NOT refer to traffic using the road but for example: Hire skips blocking access to footpaths. Is also applicable to farmers/contractors and the like during silage time and spreading muck across roads.

    Do you have case law to support that interpretation? I would think that the phrase "in any way" could include slower moving vehicles building up a queue behind them and not pulling over to let it past.
    It's all Here Nothing about cyclists or slow moving vehicles though.

    Indeed there isn't. Nothing to say the law doesn't include traffic using the road either. Probably more likely to fall under inconsiderate riding though - as the police tried to invoke at Box Hill.
    If it doesn't exist in LAW then it kind of implies it doesn't exist.

    What exists in law is the statement that "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence" - I cannot see why a slow moving vehicle holding up other traffic and failing to pull over to let it past could not be included in "in any way". A law does not have to detail absolutely every way in which it could be broken.

    So tell me. Who doesn't have authority to use a road? Therefore becoming an obstruction automatically????

    Your interpretation automatically assumes that any road user slower than you is an obstruction. So an HGV doing 20mph in a 30mph zone, can obstruct me as I can cycle at 25mph easily?
  • karlth
    karlth Posts: 156
    edited September 2012
    It's not about authority to use a road. It's about how the road is used. If it's used obstructively, then it may fall under that law. It probably would be more likely to be prosecuted as inconsiderate driving/riding, and I'm pretty sure that people have been prosecuted for that for failing to pull over to let faster traffic past.

    My interpretation does not have the implication you state. The wording has "wilfully" in it - one is not wilfully holding up other traffic if one cannot go any faster and cannot pull over.

    I am not saying my interpretation is correct - I'm just not convinced that yours is either.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    edited September 2012
    karlth wrote:
    It's not about authority to use a road. It's about how the road is used.
    It's about limitations on what you can do near or on a highway. This includes, crops, skips, buildings,fences,gates,turnstiles. These are obstructions of free passage of a highway as listed in law.
    If it's used obstructively, then it may fall under that law. It probably would be more likely to be prosecuted as inconsiderate driving/riding, and I'm pretty sure that people have been prosecuted for that for failing to pull over to let faster traffic past.
    Oh you're pretty sure? Well that settles everything then.
    My interpretation does not have the implication you state. The wording has "wilfully" in it - one is not wilfully holding up other traffic if one cannot go any faster and cannot pull over.
    Therefore a cyclist or slow moving vehicle cannot be an obstruction.
  • styxd
    styxd Posts: 3,234
    Do people actually pull over to let cars past?

    Not a chance, especially if I'm on a good strava time.

    They'll have to just wait it out, they've only got themselves to blame for choosing to drive a car.
  • karlth
    karlth Posts: 156
    styxd wrote:
    Do people actually pull over to let cars past?

    I do frequently. It's called "common curtesy" and treating others how I'd like them to treat me.
    They'll have to just wait it out, they've only got themselves to blame for choosing to drive a car.

    You have no idea of the purpose of someone's journey, or its urgency.
  • karlth
    karlth Posts: 156
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    karlth wrote:
    It's not about authority to use a road. It's about how the road is used.
    It's about limitations on what you can do near or on a highway. This includes, crops, skips, buildings,fences,gates,turnstiles. These are obstructions of free passage of a highway as listed in law.
    If it's used obstructively, then it may fall under that law. It probably would be more likely to be prosecuted as inconsiderate driving/riding, and I'm pretty sure that people have been prosecuted for that for failing to pull over to let faster traffic past.
    Oh you're pretty sure? Well that settles everything then.
    My interpretation does not have the implication you state. The wording has "wilfully" in it - one is not wilfully holding up other traffic if one cannot go any faster and cannot pull over.
    Therefore a cyclist or slow moving vehicle cannot be an obstruction.

    It can if it could pull over and chooses not to. I wish there was actually a lawyer on here who knew rather than just a few armchair pundits like thee, me and diy who don't.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    karlth wrote:
    T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
    karlth wrote:
    It's not about authority to use a road. It's about how the road is used.
    It's about limitations on what you can do near or on a highway. This includes, crops, skips, buildings,fences,gates,turnstiles. These are obstructions of free passage of a highway as listed in law.
    If it's used obstructively, then it may fall under that law. It probably would be more likely to be prosecuted as inconsiderate driving/riding, and I'm pretty sure that people have been prosecuted for that for failing to pull over to let faster traffic past.
    Oh you're pretty sure? Well that settles everything then.
    My interpretation does not have the implication you state. The wording has "wilfully" in it - one is not wilfully holding up other traffic if one cannot go any faster and cannot pull over.
    Therefore a cyclist or slow moving vehicle cannot be an obstruction.

    It can if it could pull over and chooses not to. I wish there was actually a lawyer on here who knew rather than just a few armchair pundits like thee, me and diy who don't.
    Oh FFS
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    karlth wrote:
    styxd wrote:
    Do people actually pull over to let cars past?

    I do frequently. It's called "common curtesy" and treating others how I'd like them to treat me.

    It sounds like, for you, what the motorist 'would like' trumps all other considerations...

    As if cringing in the gutter weren't bad enough, you want cyclists to get off the road to let other traffic pass.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    edited September 2012
    People who ride 2 abreast (or more) when there are obviously cars stuck behind them disgust me.
  • styxd
    styxd Posts: 3,234
    People who ride 2 abreast (or more) when there are abviously cars stuck behind them disgust me.

    Fat lads who weigh 120kg piss me off. Absolutely no chance of getting past if there's traffic coming the other way. Thankfully, they often end up getting off at any sight of a slight incline in the road!

    :lol:
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    styxd wrote:
    People who ride 2 abreast (or more) when there are abviously cars stuck behind them disgust me.

    Fat lads who weigh 120kg wee-wee me off. Absolutely no chance of getting past if there's traffic coming the other way. Thankfully, they often end up getting off at any sight of a slight incline in the road!

    :lol:

    120kg of solid muscle me. Move along now.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    Bustacapp wrote:
    People who ride 2 abreast (or more) when there are abviously cars stuck behind them disgust me.
    How dare they ride safely??? The cheek..
  • smidsy
    smidsy Posts: 5,273
    edited September 2012
    Your not listening - if you ride in the correct position as a solo the car still needs to go onto the other side of the road to overtake.

    Riding two abreast in the correct fashion presents no more overtaking issues than riding solo.

    Conversely riding solo with a large group presents more of an overtaking problem than 2 abreast as the length of bikes doubles - therefore requiring more time to overtake.

    When we are on our club runs we always try to give the 'car back' shout and move to single file - but the amount of times the car overtakes when we do so is negligable against if we missed it and happen to stay 2 abreast.

    In several instances by going single file we actually created a bigger problem as the snake had nowhere to go and the car only gets part way past then squeezes in on the group to avoid oncoming trafffic.

    In my experience the problem is invariably created by other road users impatience and lack of knowledge of the correct way to overtake cyclists - not the other way round.

    Other road users simply need to allow enough room and pass when safe to do so.
    Yellow is the new Black.
  • styxd
    styxd Posts: 3,234
    120kg of solid muscle me. Move along now.

    Sorry!

    Although it is quite evident, since you do appear to be lacking a brain.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    smidsy wrote:
    Your not listening - if you ride in the correct position as a solo the car still needs to go onto the other side of the road to overtake.

    Riding two abreast in the correct fashion presents no more overtaking issues than riding solo.

    Conversely riding solo with a large group presents more of an overtaking problem than 2 abreast as the length of bikes doubles - therefore requiring more time to overtake.

    When we are on our club runs we always try to give the 'car back' shout and move to single file - but the amount of times the car overtakes when we do so is negligable against if we missed it and happen to stay 2 abreast.

    In several instances by going single file we actually created a bigger problem as the snake had nowhere to go and the car only gets part way past then squeezes in on the group to avoid oncoming trafffic.

    In my experience the problem is invariably created by other road users impatience and lack of knowledge of the correct way to overtake cyclists - not the other way round.

    Other road users simply need to allow enough room and pass when safe to do so.
    Unfortunate thing is. Some muppet will come along and tell you that this entire post is wrong or illegal or some morally unacceptable BS. God kills a kitten everytime a pair of cyclists ride two abreast blah blah blah

    Fact is - you are fecking right! It's not fault of this forum if some cyclists are so concerned at what other road users think they endanger themselves.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    styxd wrote:
    120kg of solid muscle me. Move along now.

    Sorry!

    Although it is quite evident, since you do appear to be lacking a brain.

    Now now. No need to be so stereotypical. Bet you wouldn't say that to my 'fat face'. :)
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    If cyclists ride in single file then cars can pass without having to pull out. Cyclists who ride 2 abreast while cars are behind them should be taken into a field and shot through the back of the head imho. Scum!
  • smidsy
    smidsy Posts: 5,273
    Bustacapp wrote:
    If cyclists ride in single file then cars can pass without having to pull out. Cyclists who ride 2 abreast while cars are behind them should be taken into a field and shot through the back of the head imho. Scum!

    I know you have only posted to illecit a reaction but you are simply wrong with your first sentence THE END
    Yellow is the new Black.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    smidsy wrote:
    Bustacapp wrote:
    If cyclists ride in single file then cars can pass without having to pull out. Cyclists who ride 2 abreast while cars are behind them should be taken into a field and shot through the back of the head imho. Scum!

    I know you have only posted to illecit a reaction but you are simply wrong with your first sentence THE END

    No I'm not, unless of course you're one of those @rseholes that rides in the middle of the road. And then come on here ranting about a motorist flicking you the bird!!

    ...hmmmm.....it's all beginning to make sense now.
  • izzy Eviel
    izzy Eviel Posts: 48
    Bustacapp wrote:
    If cyclists ride in single file then cars can pass without having to pull out. Cyclists who ride 2 abreast while cars are behind them should be taken into a field and shot through the back of the head imho. Scum!

    On most roads that would be considered dangerous. Motorists who don't know how to overtake properly and safely should be taken into a field...
  • phy2sll2
    phy2sll2 Posts: 680
    Bustacapp wrote:
    No I'm not, unless of course you're one of those @rseholes that rides in the middle of the road. And then come on here ranting about a motorist flicking you the bird!!

    ...hmmmm.....it's all beginning to make sense now.

    You're the Ribble complainer guy, aren't you? Have you considered talking to your GP about stress?
  • smidsy
    smidsy Posts: 5,273
    phy2sll2 wrote:
    Bustacapp wrote:
    No I'm not, unless of course you're one of those @rseholes that rides in the middle of the road. And then come on here ranting about a motorist flicking you the bird!!

    ...hmmmm.....it's all beginning to make sense now.

    You're the Ribble complainer guy, aren't you? Have you considered talking to your GP about stress?

    No but I bet his doctor has :lol:
    Yellow is the new Black.
  • Bustacapp
    Bustacapp Posts: 971
    phy2sll2 wrote:
    You're the Ribble complainer guy, aren't you? Have you considered talking to your GP about stress?

    Yes I'm the Ribble complainer guy and what of it?

    I'm not stressed though, just someone who's not got a heavily biased attitude about riding. Does the truth hurt a little?

Categories