Re: Motorbike Filtering

[Marz]

On Feb 10, 6:11*am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
> >>> overtaking properly on his right.
>
> >>> Derek
>
> >> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>
> >So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
> >hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>
> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>
> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>
> Derek

I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
the lights.

[Marz]

On Feb 10, 12:49*pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
wrote:
> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >Marz wrote:
> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
> >>>>>> Derek
> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>
> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>
> >>> Derek
>
> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
> >> the lights
>
> >...which is a *correct* response.
>
> >Well done!
>
> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>
> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
> care).

I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.

In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.

The times I've filtered in dual lane traffic, that's doing about 15mph
and I'm doing about 20mph, I've found the biggest pain in the bum to
be the motorcyclists filtering at 30mph coming up from behind.

[Nick Finnigan]

Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
> care).

No, the correct procedure is for those turning left to keep over to the
left, and those turning right to move over to the right, allowing as much
room as possible for vehicles taking the other direction to pass, and for
outsize vehicles to turn safely. 'Maintaining their line' leads to a long
single queue where the lane is wide enough for two queues of cars.

[judith]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:49:51 +0000, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

>JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Marz wrote:
>>> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>
>>>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>
>>>> Derek
>>>
>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>> the lights
>>
>>...which is a *correct* response.
>>
>>Well done!
>
>Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>
>The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>care).



Perhaps you can tell us where filtering is defined for cyclists -
what does "filtering" actually mean - where is it defined so?

Is it undertaking, or is it overtaking - or perhaps a combination of
both:

undertake on left - bugger, the next vehicle is too far over to the
left - so pass between rear of one vehicle and the front of another -
overtake the next vehicle on right - then pass between next pair of
vehicles back to the left.

Is that filtering?

If not - perhaps you can define what it is - and then show where the
Highway Code endorses same.

[Nick Finnigan]

judith wrote:
>
> Perhaps you can tell us where filtering is defined for cyclists -
> what does "filtering" actually mean - where is it defined so?

It is not defined, just as 'U-turn' is not defined.

> Is it undertaking, or is it overtaking - or perhaps a combination of
> both:

There is no definition of 'undertaking' or 'overtaking' either.

> undertake on left - bugger, the next vehicle is too far over to the
> left - so pass between rear of one vehicle and the front of another -
> overtake the next vehicle on right - then pass between next pair of
> vehicles back to the left.
>
> Is that filtering?

If you want it to be - it can be used to let smaller objects past where
larger ones can not.

> If not - perhaps you can define what it is - and then show where the
> Highway Code endorses same.

The Highway Code is incapable of writing, on the back or anywhere else.

[Marz]

On Feb 10, 1:33*pm, judith > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:49:51 +0000, Phil W Lee
>
>
>
> <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> >JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
> >17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>Marz wrote:
> >>> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
> >>>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
> >>>>>>> Derek
> >>>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
> >>>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
> >>>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
> >>>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
> >>>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
> >>>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>
> >>>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
> >>>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
> >>>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>
> >>>> Derek
>
> >>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
> >>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
> >>> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
> >>> the lights
>
> >>...which is a *correct* response.
>
> >>Well done!
>
> >Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
> >alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
> >And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
> >wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
> >something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
> >bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
> >warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>
> >The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
> >neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
> >consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
> >care).
>
> Perhaps *you can tell us where filtering is defined for cyclists -
> what does "filtering" actually mean - where is it defined so?
>
> Is it undertaking, or is it overtaking - or perhaps a combination of
> both:
>
> undertake on left - bugger, the next vehicle is too far over to the
> left - so pass between rear of one vehicle and the front of another -
> overtake the next vehicle on right - then pass between next pair of
> vehicles back to the left.
>
> Is that filtering?
>
> If *not - perhaps you can define what it is - and then show where the
> Highway Code endorses same.

For me it means if I can ride on through without scratching a car or
killing myself then I'll ride on through.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> said in
>:

>The times I've filtered in dual lane traffic, that's doing about 15mph
>and I'm doing about 20mph, I've found the biggest pain in the bum to
>be the motorcyclists filtering at 30mph coming up from behind.

I don't have a problem with botormikes as a rule, they tend to know
what they are doing and keep their eyes open. It's the bloody
scooters that wind me up. Especially the ones that /try/ to filter
only to discover that the gap is not quite wide enough to clear
their oh-so-trendy Tucano Urbano Hand Grips (aka barmuffs) - by the
requisite two feet each side, being the minimum clearance within
which they can make progress. So they stop. Blocking the gap for
the dozen or so cyclists who could get through there no trouble at
all and who were just about to do exactly that before the scooterist
pulled in and blocked it /without looking/, just as they do
everything without looking. I think this is just a London problem,
though.

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
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>

[Clive George]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...

> I don't have a problem with botormikes as a rule, they tend to know
> what they are doing and keep their eyes open. It's the bloody
> scooters that wind me up. Especially the ones that /try/ to filter
> only to discover that the gap is not quite wide enough to clear
> their oh-so-trendy Tucano Urbano Hand Grips (aka barmuffs) - by the
> requisite two feet each side, being the minimum clearance within
> which they can make progress. So they stop. Blocking the gap for
> the dozen or so cyclists who could get through there no trouble at
> all and who were just about to do exactly that before the scooterist
> pulled in and blocked it /without looking/, just as they do
> everything without looking. I think this is just a London problem,
> though.

Anybody who complains about filtering 2-wheelers really needs to have a go
at driving in an Italian city to see how it's done. However a drop-bar
tandem can still get through smaller gaps than an Italian scooter :-)

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:46:27 +0000, Nick Finnigan >
said in >:

[ob. filtering]

> It is not defined, just as 'U-turn' is not defined.

Not defined, perhaps, but certainly used:

211: It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists,
especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of
junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through
traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction;
they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right
across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for
cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are
crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing
direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots
carefully.

Other rules also allude to the practice, for example:

72: On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out
for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road.
Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or
motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or
slowing down to turn left.

There is also no rule or legislation forbidding it.

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
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>

[judith]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:46:27 +0000, Nick Finnigan >
wrote:

>judith wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you can tell us where filtering is defined for cyclists -
>> what does "filtering" actually mean - where is it defined so?
>
> It is not defined, just as 'U-turn' is not defined.


I think you will find that are wrong here - given that there is a road
sign which prohibits it, then it is a pretty fair bet that there will
be a legal definition of what it means somewhere in the RTA and
related acts.



>> Is it undertaking, or is it overtaking - or perhaps a combination of
>> both:
>
> There is no definition of 'undertaking' or 'overtaking' either.


Oh - really - so you think again that such terms are not defined
within the meaning of the RTA and other relevant legislation.



>> undertake on left - bugger, the next vehicle is too far over to the
>> left - so pass between rear of one vehicle and the front of another -
>> overtake the next vehicle on right - then pass between next pair of
>> vehicles back to the left.
>>
>> Is that filtering?
>
> If you want it to be - it can be used to let smaller objects past where
>larger ones can not.


So what is *your* definition of filtering as applied to cyclists?


>> If not - perhaps you can define what it is - and then show where the
>> Highway Code endorses same.
>
> The Highway Code is incapable of writing, on the back or anywhere else.


Good- we agree then - the Highway Code does *not* endorse filtering.

[judith]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:16:10 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:46:27 +0000, Nick Finnigan >
>said in >:
>
>[ob. filtering]
>
>> It is not defined, just as 'U-turn' is not defined.
>
>Not defined, perhaps, but certainly used:
>
>211: It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists,
>especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of
>junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through
>traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction;
>they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right
>across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for
>cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are
>crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing
>direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots
>carefully.
>
>Other rules also allude to the practice, for example:
>
>72: On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out
>for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road.
>Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or
>motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or
>slowing down to turn left.
>
>There is also no rule or legislation forbidding it.
>
>Guy


Many thanks for repeating what OG said four hours ago - good to see
that you are on the ball as ever - or have you started on the pop a
little earlier than usual?

The term being used is not the same as it being endorsed.

The Highway Code also says "look well ahead for obstructions in the
road, such as drains, pot-holes" - I guess you will tell us that the
HC endorses pot-holes etc.

[Derek Geldard]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:00:55 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:


>I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>and I'll overtake to the right,

Fine, it's what you should do. I've moved over to make room for you.

> I'm still going to be ahead of you at the lights.

And this concerns me how ? I'm turning left.

Derek

[Nick Finnigan]

judith wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:46:27 +0000, Nick Finnigan >
> wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>> Perhaps you can tell us where filtering is defined for cyclists -
>>> what does "filtering" actually mean - where is it defined so?
>> It is not defined, just as 'U-turn' is not defined.
>
>
> I think you will find that are wrong here - given that there is a road

I won't

> sign which prohibits it, then it is a pretty fair bet that there will
> be a legal definition of what it means somewhere in the RTA and
> related acts.

There isn't. Lots of signs are undefined.

>>> Is it undertaking, or is it overtaking - or perhaps a combination of
>>> both:
>> There is no definition of 'undertaking' or 'overtaking' either.
>
>
> Oh - really - so you think again that such terms are not defined
> within the meaning of the RTA and other relevant legislation.

There is no relevant legislation for undertaking.

>>> undertake on left - bugger, the next vehicle is too far over to the
>>> left - so pass between rear of one vehicle and the front of another -
>>> overtake the next vehicle on right - then pass between next pair of
>>> vehicles back to the left.
>>>
>>> Is that filtering?
>> If you want it to be - it can be used to let smaller objects past where
>> larger ones can not.
>
>
> So what is *your* definition of filtering as applied to cyclists?

I have none, there is no need for one.

>>> If not - perhaps you can define what it is - and then show where the
>>> Highway Code endorses same.
>> The Highway Code is incapable of writing, on the back or anywhere else.
>
> Good- we agree then - the Highway Code does *not* endorse filtering.

'Agree' is not defined.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

Marz wrote:
>
> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>

What do you do on urban dual carriageways with traffic lights (or any road
wide enough for two lanes of traffic)? If you filter to the front and there
is not an advanced stop line for cyclists then you are stuck between two
lanes of traffic which will quickly become two lanes of moving traffic when
the lights change. It is not desirable to be between moving traffic streams
on a bicycle. Do you just merge back into the traffic when it starts moving?

I don't get much practice at filtering as where I am it is either too
hazardous or the queue is short enough that I might as well join the back of
it.

[Marz]

On Feb 10, 2:39*pm, Derek Geldard > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:00:55 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
> > wrote:
> >I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
> >forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
> >and I'll overtake to the right,
>
> Fine, it's what you should do. I've moved over to make room for you.
>
> > I'm still going to be ahead of you at the lights.
>
> And this concerns me how ? *I'm turning left.
>
> Derek

While I've seen plenty of cars pull to the left and block me from
filtering, I've yet to see one do so for the purposes of turning left.
When I'm in traffic in my car I've never seen another driver place
themselves 4" from the kerb to then turn left, hardly an optimum
position. This action of moving closer to the kerb than necessary is
reserved for blocking filtering cyclists.

[Mike]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:53:21 -0000, "OG" >
wrote:

>Moving to the left /to block the cyclist/ is an illegal manoeuvre anyway.
>(RTA 1988 S3)

Thanks for letting me know that I'm breaking the law. I'll continue
to offend on every occasion as I see fit as a motorist but I'll also
continue to queue as a cyclist rather than force my way through to the
front of stationary traffic.


--

[Clive George]

"Adam Lea" > wrote in message
...
> Marz wrote:
>>
>> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>
>
> What do you do on urban dual carriageways with traffic lights (or any road
> wide enough for two lanes of traffic)? If you filter to the front and
> there is not an advanced stop line for cyclists then you are stuck between
> two lanes of traffic which will quickly become two lanes of moving traffic
> when the lights change. It is not desirable to be between moving traffic
> streams on a bicycle. Do you just merge back into the traffic when it
> starts moving?

If I'm at the front, appropriate positioning to ensure I'm first off. DIY
ASL, something I learned while riding as a teenager in London before the
practice was formalised. If it starts moving before I make it to the front,
I just merge in - it's easy enough.

[Graz]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:

>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>wrote:
>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Marz wrote:
>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>> >>>>>> Derek
>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>
>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>
>> >>> Derek
>>
>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>> >> the lights
>>
>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>
>> >Well done!
>>
>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>
>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>> care).
>
>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>
>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.

And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.

[Graz]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:47:22 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:

>On Feb 10, 2:39=A0pm, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:00:55 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>> >forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>> >and I'll overtake to the right,
>>
>> Fine, it's what you should do. I've moved over to make room for you.
>>
>> > I'm still going to be ahead of you at the lights.
>>
>> And this concerns me how ? =A0I'm turning left.
>>
>> Derek
>
>While I've seen plenty of cars pull to the left and block me from
>filtering, I've yet to see one do so for the purposes of turning left.
>When I'm in traffic in my car I've never seen another driver place
>themselves 4" from the kerb to then turn left, hardly an optimum
>position. This action of moving closer to the kerb than necessary is
>reserved for blocking filtering cyclists.

Actually, it's to allow motorcycles to filter on the right. At least
motorcycles obey red lights.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:39:22 +0000, Mike > said in
>:

>Thanks for letting me know that I'm breaking the law. I'll continue
>to offend on every occasion as I see fit as a motorist but I'll also
>continue to queue as a cyclist rather than force my way through to the
>front of stationary traffic.

Force? You have to /force/ your way? Odd. I ride most days in
London, I just trundle up to the front (and usually stay there as
the motor traffic is very often essentially stationary between
junctions).

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
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>

[Peter Grange]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:33:28 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>wrote:
>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >Marz wrote:
>>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>> >>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>> >>>>>> Derek
>>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>
>>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>
>>> >>> Derek
>>>
>>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>> >> the lights
>>>
>>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>
>>> >Well done!
>>>
>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>
>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>> care).
>>
>>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>
>>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>
>And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.

My parents were happily married thanks. Yours?

[Marz]

On Feb 10, 9:36*pm, (Graz) wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:47:22 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 10, 2:39=A0pm, Derek Geldard > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:00:55 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
> >> >forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
> >> >and I'll overtake to the right,
>
> >> Fine, it's what you should do. I've moved over to make room for you.
>
> >> > I'm still going to be ahead of you at the lights.
>
> >> And this concerns me how ? =A0I'm turning left.
>
> >> Derek
>
> >While I've seen plenty of cars pull to the left and block me from
> >filtering, I've yet to see one do so for the purposes of turning left.
> >When I'm in traffic in my car I've never seen another driver place
> >themselves 4" from the kerb to then turn left, hardly an optimum
> >position. This action of moving closer to the kerb than necessary is
> >reserved for blocking filtering cyclists.
>
> Actually, it's to allow motorcycles to filter on the right. *At least
> motorcycles obey red lights.

I can sort of see that, when I drive through London you do have to be
very aware that there's a virtual lane down the middle of every road
that may contain a motorbike and you make allowances for them. Also
when I’ve filtered through London traffic on my bike I have in general
used the middle of the road.

But from what I’ve observed, drivers who have passed me ahead of a set
of lights and have subsequently moved further to the left than the
rest of the cars in the queue have done so for the express reason of
blocking me from filtering.

Regards your red light jab, nyah!

[Marz]

On Feb 10, 5:36*pm, "Adam Lea" > wrote:
> Marz wrote:
>
> > I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
> > sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
> > bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>
> What do you do on urban dual carriageways with traffic lights (or any road
> wide enough for two lanes of traffic)? If you filter to the front and there
> is not an advanced stop line for cyclists then you are stuck between two
> lanes of traffic which will quickly become two lanes of moving traffic when
> the lights change. It is not desirable to be between moving traffic streams
> on a bicycle. Do you just merge back into the traffic when it starts moving?
>
> I don't get much practice at filtering as where I am it is either too
> hazardous or the queue is short enough that I might as well join the back of
> it.

It's not a desirable place to end up, but as the traffic moves off you
just fall in behind the leading car and move back to the left. You do
have to be comfortable hitting about 15-20mph in a few pedal strokes,
so for a couple of seconds you can match the car next to you's
acceleration. It's not a place you want to be if you in general amble
off from the lights.

[Marz]

On Feb 10, 9:33*pm, (Graz) wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> >wrote:
> >> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
> >> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
> >> >Marz wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
> >> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
> >> >>>>>> Derek
> >> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
> >> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
> >> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
> >> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
> >> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
> >> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>
> >> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
> >> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
> >> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>
> >> >>> Derek
>
> >> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
> >> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
> >> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
> >> >> the lights
>
> >> >...which is a *correct* response.
>
> >> >Well done!
>
> >> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
> >> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
> >> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
> >> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
> >> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
> >> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
> >> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>
> >> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
> >> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
> >> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
> >> care).
>
> >I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
> >sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
> >bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>
> >In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
> >block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
> >passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
> >after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
> >'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>
> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.

Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed to
register my presence.

I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.

I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
the light's changed.

[judith]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:59:49 +0000, Nick Finnigan >
wrote:

<inability to answer questions snipped>


> 'Agree' is not defined.


OK - I give up - you've beaten me in to submission - please no more,
no more.

One final question:

Did you go to the Chapman School of ****wittery - he seems to have
carried out a remarkable job.




--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

[Clive George]

"Marz" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 9:33 pm, (Graz) wrote:

>> Trolling
>
> response to said trolling

Try not getting suckered quite so blatently by "Graz". It's just an
obnoxious troll.

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:11:19 +0000, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

(Graz) considered Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:33:28 GMT the
>perfect time to write:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Marz wrote:
>>>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>> >>>>>> Derek
>>>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>
>>>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>
>>>> >>> Derek
>>>>
>>>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>> >> the lights
>>>>
>>>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>
>>>> >Well done!
>>>>
>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>
>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>> care).
>>>
>>>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>
>>>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>
>>And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>
>Actually, every time statistics have been gathered, more cars pass at
>red than bikes do.

Is that a cyclists' urban myth? Prove it. Better still, go to any
intersection in London and take a count.

>And with your car squeezed over to the left ready for that left turn,
>you aren't half going to scrub your rear offside tyre, going over the
>kerb at the turn.

Not if you know how to drive.

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:33:34 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:33:28 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Marz wrote:
>>>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>> >>>>>> Derek
>>>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>
>>>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>
>>>> >>> Derek
>>>>
>>>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>> >> the lights
>>>>
>>>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>
>>>> >Well done!
>>>>
>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>
>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>> care).
>>>
>>>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>
>>>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>
>>And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>
>My parents were happily married thanks. Yours?

But do you go through red lights?

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:

>On Feb 10, 9:33=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Feb 10, 12:49=3DA0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>> >> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>> >> >Marz wrote:
>> >> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" =
>>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>> >> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>> >> >>>>>> Derek
>> >> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>> >> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for anothe=
>r
>> >> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>> >> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to mak=
>e a
>> >> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic =
>is
>> >> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>
>> >> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>> >> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobb=
>le
>> >> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>
>> >> >>> Derek
>>
>> >> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filterin=
>g
>> >> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>> >> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you =
>at
>> >> >> the lights
>>
>> >> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>
>> >> >Well done!
>>
>> >> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>> >> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>> >> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>> >> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>> >> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>> >> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>> >> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>
>> >> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>> >> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>> >> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>> >> care).
>>
>> >I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>> >sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>> >bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>
>> >In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>> >block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>> >passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>> >after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>> >'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>
>> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>
>Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
>of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed to
>register my presence.
>
>I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.
>
>I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
>light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
>the light's changed.

You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.

[Naked Gonad]

Graz wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), Marz
> > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 10, 9:33=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Feb 10, 12:49=3DA0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" =
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>>>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>>>>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for anothe=
>> r
>>>>>>>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>>>>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to mak=
>> e a
>>>>>>>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic =
>> is
>>>>>>>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>>>>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>>>>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobb=
>> le
>>>>>>>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filterin=
>> g
>>>>>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>>>>> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you =
>> at
>>>>>>> the lights
>>>>>> ...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>>> Well done!
>>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>>> care).
>>>> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>> In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>> block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>> passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>> after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>> 'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>> Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
>> of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed to
>> register my presence.
>>
>> I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.
>>
>> I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
>> light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
>> the light's changed.
>
> You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>
When I use my cycle,I always stop at red lights and always have done.
It's no big deal.

[Peter Grange]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:37:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:33:34 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:33:28 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >Marz wrote:
>>>>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>> >>>>>> Derek
>>>>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> Derek
>>>>>
>>>>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>>> >> the lights
>>>>>
>>>>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Well done!
>>>>>
>>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>>> care).
>>>>
>>>>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>>
>>>>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>>
>>>And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>>
>>My parents were happily married thanks. Yours?
>
>But do you go through red lights?

Can't you even read your own post? Let's parse the sentence:-

The "you *******s" presumably means all cyclists. Please explain if it
doesn't.

"most" presumably means "less than all". Please explain if it doesn't.

Therefore I assume you believe all cyclists to be *******s, but all
cyclists don't go through red lights.

So, even though I don't go through red lights (either whilst cycling
or driving) I presume from that you think I am a *******, which I have
explained to you I am not.

Is that simple enough for you? Do please let me know if not & I'll
try to make it even simpler, difficult as it may be.

[Marz]

On Feb 11, 9:38*am, (Graz) wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 10, 9:33=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Feb 10, 12:49=3DA0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
> >> >> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
> >> >> >Marz wrote:
> >> >> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" =
>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
> >> >> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
> >> >> >>>>>> Derek
> >> >> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
> >> >> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for anothe=
> >r
> >> >> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
> >> >> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to mak=
> >e a
> >> >> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic =
> >is
> >> >> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>
> >> >> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
> >> >> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobb=
> >le
> >> >> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>
> >> >> >>> Derek
>
> >> >> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filterin=
> >g
> >> >> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
> >> >> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you =
> >at
> >> >> >> the lights
>
> >> >> >...which is a *correct* response.
>
> >> >> >Well done!
>
> >> >> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
> >> >> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
> >> >> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
> >> >> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
> >> >> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
> >> >> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
> >> >> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>
> >> >> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
> >> >> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
> >> >> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
> >> >> care).
>
> >> >I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
> >> >sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
> >> >bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>
> >> >In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
> >> >block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
> >> >passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
> >> >after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
> >> >'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>
> >> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>
> >Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
> >of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed to
> >register my presence.
>
> >I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.
>
> >I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
> >light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
> >the light's changed.
>
> You obviously see what you want to see. *In London, a cyclist who
> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.

So you're admitting to not observing all the other cyclists who don't
run red lights. Do you live in London or just read the Daily Wail?

[JNugent[_5_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Marz wrote:
>>> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>
>>>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>
>>>> Derek
>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>> the lights
>> ...which is a *correct* response.
>>
>> Well done!
>
> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.

Oh yes, you see that happening ten times a day, don't you?

> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.

> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line

....until they need to change it.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Marz wrote:
> On Feb 10, 12:49 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> wrote:
>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Marz wrote:
>>>> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>> Derek
>>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>> the lights
>>> ...which is a *correct* response.
>>> Well done!
>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>
>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>> care).
>
> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.

Some would call that queue-jumping, of course.

And to the extent that cyclists pull in front of temporarily-stopped traffic
and them fail to move off at the speed the overtaken traffic wpould naturally
move at, they'd be correct.

But aside from that, who has said that cyclists must wait in line with motor
traffic? All anyone has said is don't overtake on the left.

Can you have so soon forgotten the fuss about cyclists being squashed when
trying to undertake left-turning traffic?

Overtake on the right - that's all anyone is saying.

> In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
> block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
> passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
> after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
> 'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.

He might just be "saying" (do you have a qualification in mind-reading and
projection, BTW?) "Don't try and get past in the gutter - go around on the
left - nd while you're at it, don't go through the red light".

[JNugent[_5_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:46:27 +0000, Nick Finnigan >
> said in >:
>
> [ob. filtering]
>
>> It is not defined, just as 'U-turn' is not defined.
>
> Not defined, perhaps, but certainly used:
>
> 211: It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists,
> especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of
> junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through
> traffic.

That does not imply endorsement.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Marz wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2:39 pm, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:00:55 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>> and I'll overtake to the right,
>> Fine, it's what you should do. I've moved over to make room for you.
>>
>>> I'm still going to be ahead of you at the lights.
>> And this concerns me how ? I'm turning left.
>>
>> Derek
>
> While I've seen plenty of cars pull to the left and block me from
> filtering, I've yet to see one do so for the purposes of turning left.

Keep looking.

You'll spot it one day.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Derek Geldard > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
> 20:39:03 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:00:55 -0800 (PST), Marz
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>> and I'll overtake to the right,
>> Fine, it's what you should do. I've moved over to make room for you.
>>
>>> I'm still going to be ahead of you at the lights.
>> And this concerns me how ? I'm turning left.

> So am I.

In that case, you're second in line. No problem AFAICS.

> But how come you never indicated?

Is that required by law?

Indicators themselves are not required by law, and using something which is
legally an optional extra cannot be a legal requirement (not to mention how
quickly your right arm would get tired doing that semi-circular motion sign
for a left turn).

But in any event... and don't take this the wrong way... but a cyclist having
a go at other road users for not signalling (enough) is a bit rich, as I
think you will be mature enough to agree.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

Clive George wrote:
> "Adam Lea" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Marz wrote:
>>>
>>> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>
>>
>> What do you do on urban dual carriageways with traffic lights (or
>> any road wide enough for two lanes of traffic)? If you filter to the
>> front and there is not an advanced stop line for cyclists then you
>> are stuck between two lanes of traffic which will quickly become two
>> lanes of moving traffic when the lights change. It is not desirable
>> to be between moving traffic streams on a bicycle. Do you just merge
>> back into the traffic when it starts moving?
>
> If I'm at the front, appropriate positioning to ensure I'm first off.
> DIY ASL, something I learned while riding as a teenager in London
> before the practice was formalised. If it starts moving before I make
> it to the front, I just merge in - it's easy enough.

Assuming you filter to the front, how do you position yourself ahead of the
queue without going through the stop line?

[Clive George]

"Adam Lea" > wrote in message
...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Adam Lea" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you do on urban dual carriageways with traffic lights (or
>>> any road wide enough for two lanes of traffic)? If you filter to the
>>> front and there is not an advanced stop line for cyclists then you
>>> are stuck between two lanes of traffic which will quickly become two
>>> lanes of moving traffic when the lights change. It is not desirable
>>> to be between moving traffic streams on a bicycle. Do you just merge
>>> back into the traffic when it starts moving?
>>
>> If I'm at the front, appropriate positioning to ensure I'm first off.
>> DIY ASL, something I learned while riding as a teenager in London
>> before the practice was formalised. If it starts moving before I make
>> it to the front, I just merge in - it's easy enough.
>
> Assuming you filter to the front, how do you position yourself ahead of
> the queue without going through the stop line?

You know the answer to that one.

[BIG_ONE]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

>I don't have a problem with botormikes as a rule, they tend to know
>what they are doing and keep their eyes open. It's the bloody
>scooters that wind me up. Especially the ones that /try/ to filter
>only to discover that the gap is not quite wide enough to clear
>their oh-so-trendy Tucano Urbano Hand Grips (aka barmuffs) - by the
>requisite two feet each side, being the minimum clearance within
>which they can make progress. So they stop. Blocking the gap for
>the dozen or so cyclists who could get through there no trouble at
>all and who were just about to do exactly that before the scooterist
>pulled in and blocked it /without looking/, just as they do
>everything without looking. I think this is just a London problem,
>though.
>
>Guy

they do the same here in paris, but at least in london they (scooters)
don't ride on the pavement.

[OG]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> Marz wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 12:49 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>> wrote:
>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>>>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>>>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>>>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>>> Derek
>>>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>>> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>>> the lights
>>>> ...which is a *correct* response.
>>>> Well done!
>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>
>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>> care).
>>
>> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>
> Some would call that queue-jumping, of course.
>
> And to the extent that cyclists pull in front of temporarily-stopped
> traffic and them fail to move off at the speed the overtaken traffic
> wpould naturally move at, they'd be correct.
>
> But aside from that, who has said that cyclists must wait in line with
> motor traffic? All anyone has said is don't overtake on the left.

There's no problem with passing on the left

> Can you have so soon forgotten the fuss about cyclists being squashed when
> trying to undertake left-turning traffic?

That's not the same as filtering.

> Overtake on the right - that's all anyone is saying.

It's what you are saying - what we are saying is don't block cyclists from
passing on the left.

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:19:33 +0000, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

(Graz) considered Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:36:51 GMT the
>perfect time to write:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:11:19 +0000, Phil W Lee
>><phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>>
(Graz) considered Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:33:28 GMT the
>>>perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Marz wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>> >>>>>> Derek
>>>>>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>>>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>>>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>>>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> Derek
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>>>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>>>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>>>> >> the lights
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Well done!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>>>> care).
>>>>>
>>>>>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>>>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>>>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>>>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>>>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>>>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>>>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>>>
>>>>And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>>>
>>>Actually, every time statistics have been gathered, more cars pass at
>>>red than bikes do.
>>
>>Is that a cyclists' urban myth? Prove it. Better still, go to any
>>intersection in London and take a count.
>>
>>>And with your car squeezed over to the left ready for that left turn,
>>>you aren't half going to scrub your rear offside tyre, going over the
>>>kerb at the turn.
>>
>>Not if you know how to drive.
>
>Well, if you knew how to drive, you wouldn't be hammed up hard to the
>kerb before making a left turn, unless you habitually drive a rear
>wheel steered vehicle.

If you knew how to drive, you'd move forward before turning left so
that your rear wheels don't touch the kerb. Ain't difficult.

>I can drive perfectly well, but have managed to retain the mental
>capacity to determine when it is necessary, and when it is pointless.
>
>Maybe because I also exercise both brain and body by cycling.

Breathing in all those diesel fumes makes you retarded.

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:44:58 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:37:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:33:34 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:33:28 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Marz wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>> >>>>>> Derek
>>>>>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>>>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>>>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>>>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> Derek
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>>>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>>>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>>>> >> the lights
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Well done!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>>>> care).
>>>>>
>>>>>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>>>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>>>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>>>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>>>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>>>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>>>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>>>
>>>>And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>>>
>>>My parents were happily married thanks. Yours?
>>
>>But do you go through red lights?
>
>Can't you even read your own post? Let's parse the sentence:-
>
>The "you *******s" presumably means all cyclists. Please explain if it
>doesn't.
>
>"most" presumably means "less than all". Please explain if it doesn't.
>
>Therefore I assume you believe all cyclists to be *******s, but all
>cyclists don't go through red lights.

You've been breathing in too many diesel fumes.

>So, even though I don't go through red lights (either whilst cycling
>or driving) I presume from that you think I am a *******, which I have
>explained to you I am not.
>
>Is that simple enough for you? Do please let me know if not & I'll
>try to make it even simpler, difficult as it may be.

Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
sense.

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:07:30 +0000, Naked Gonad
> wrote:

>Graz wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), Marz
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 9:33=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 10, 12:49=3DA0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" =
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>>>>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>>>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>>>>>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for anothe=
>>> r
>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>>>>>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to mak=
>>> e a
>>>>>>>>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic =
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>>>>>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>>>>>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobb=
>>> le
>>>>>>>>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filterin=
>>> g
>>>>>>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>>>>>> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you =
>>> at
>>>>>>>> the lights
>>>>>>> ...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>>>> Well done!
>>>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>>>> care).
>>>>> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>>> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>>> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>>> In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>>> block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>>> passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>>> after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>>> 'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>>> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>>> Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
>>> of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed to
>>> register my presence.
>>>
>>> I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.
>>>
>>> I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
>>> light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
>>> the light's changed.
>>
>> You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
>> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>>
>When I use my cycle,I always stop at red lights and always have done.
>It's no big deal.

How many times do you get overtaken by other cyclists who don't?

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:22:18 +0000, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

(Graz) considered Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:38:09 GMT the
>perfect time to write:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 10, 9:33=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >On Feb 10, 12:49=3DA0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>> >> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>> >> >Marz wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" =
>>>>
>>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>> >> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>> >> >>>>>> Derek
>>>> >> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>> >> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for anothe=
>>>r
>>>> >> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>> >> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to mak=
>>>e a
>>>> >> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic =
>>>is
>>>> >> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>
>>>> >> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>> >> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobb=
>>>le
>>>> >> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>
>>>> >> >>> Derek
>>>>
>>>> >> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filterin=
>>>g
>>>> >> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>> >> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you =
>>>at
>>>> >> >> the lights
>>>>
>>>> >> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>
>>>> >> >Well done!
>>>>
>>>> >> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>> >> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>> >> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>> >> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>> >> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>> >> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>> >> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>
>>>> >> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>> >> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>> >> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>> >> care).
>>>>
>>>> >I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>> >sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>> >bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>>
>>>> >In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>> >block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>> >passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>> >after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>> >'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>>>
>>>> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>>>
>>>Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
>>>of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed to
>>>register my presence.
>>>
>>>I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.
>>>
>>>I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
>>>light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
>>>the light's changed.
>>
>>You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
>>stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>
>Self preservation does sometimes require getting out of the way of the
>light running cars behind, but iirc the principal research on the
>subject was by TfL.
>
>Anyway, I'm now tired of your trolling, so I'm killfiling you.

Whoopee, faggot.

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:53:41 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:

>On Feb 11, 9:38=A0am, (Graz) wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Feb 10, 9:33=3DA0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 10, 12:49=3D3DA0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)=
>uk>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 200=
>9
>> >> >> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>> >> >> >Marz wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wro=
>te:
>> >> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" =
>.uk=3D
>>
>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>> >> >> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>> >> >> >>>>>> Derek
>> >> >> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>> >> >> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for ano=
>the=3D
>> >r
>> >> >> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvr=
>e.
>> >> >> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to =
>mak=3D
>> >e a
>> >> >> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traff=
>ic =3D
>> >is
>> >> >> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>
>> >> >> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cycli=
>st
>> >> >> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his b=
>obb=3D
>> >le
>> >> >> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>
>> >> >> >>> Derek
>>
>> >> >> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filte=
>rin=3D
>> >g
>> >> >> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the l=
>eft
>> >> >> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of y=
>ou =3D
>> >at
>> >> >> >> the lights
>>
>> >> >> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>
>> >> >> >Well done!
>>
>> >> >> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>> >> >> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>> >> >> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steeri=
>ng
>> >> >> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>> >> >> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>> >> >> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>> >> >> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>
>> >> >> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>> >> >> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>> >> >> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>> >> >> care).
>>
>> >> >I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>> >> >sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>> >> >bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>
>> >> >In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>> >> >block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>> >> >passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>> >> >after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond wit=
>h
>> >> >'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>
>> >> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>>
>> >Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
>> >of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed to
>> >register my presence.
>>
>> >I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.
>>
>> >I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
>> >light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
>> >the light's changed.
>>
>> You obviously see what you want to see. =A0In London, a cyclist who
>> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>
>So you're admitting to not observing all the other cyclists who don't
>run red lights. Do you live in London or just read the Daily Wail?

Can you read?

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:37:46 -0000, "AndyC"
> wrote:

>
>"Clive George" > wrote in message
et...
>>
>> If a car is in a queue behind others, it's not courteous to take a
>> different position to the ones in front - it just makes it harder for
>> everybody.
>
>There is a single carraigeway road I use regularly that ends up at a
>roundabout. At the roundabout you turn either left or right. Consequently
>the cagers either shift to the gutter (if they intend to turn left) or sit
>butted up to the centre line (if they intent to tum right). For filtering it
>is a pain because almost every other car wants to go in a different
>direction. Very few take the centre of lane.
>>
>> Courtesy also implies the driver is doing deliberately to help people -
>> whereas we know from other comments that in fact that's not the case, but
>> instead it's being done deliberately to block people, and the potential
>> for helping others is purely accidental.
>
>As a motorcyclist it is (usually) clearly obvious when a cager is being
>courteous, by their pulling over to allow you to pass. The problem with
>bicycles is that the cagers don't seem to know how to behave courteously.
>They don't know whether to overtake and get ahead, hold back (and perhaps
>annoy the cagers behind) or get-as-close-as-possible behind revving their
>engine so they can get by quickly at the first opportunity :-(

Where did you get this ridiculous idea that cyclists deserve any kind
of courtesy?

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:27:13 +0000, JNugent
> wrote:

>Phil W Lee wrote:
>> Derek Geldard > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>> 20:39:03 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:00:55 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>> and I'll overtake to the right,
>>> Fine, it's what you should do. I've moved over to make room for you.
>>>
>>>> I'm still going to be ahead of you at the lights.
>>> And this concerns me how ? I'm turning left.
>
>> So am I.
>
>In that case, you're second in line. No problem AFAICS.

He doesn't want to be "second in line". He wants to go through the
red light you've just stopped for.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:20:34 -0800 (PST), Marz
> said in
>:

>It's not a desirable place to end up, but as the traffic moves off you
>just fall in behind the leading car and move back to the left. You do
>have to be comfortable hitting about 15-20mph in a few pedal strokes,
>so for a couple of seconds you can match the car next to you's
>acceleration. It's not a place you want to be if you in general amble
>off from the lights.

YMYA :-)

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
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>

[Peter Grange]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:43:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:44:58 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:37:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:33:34 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:33:28 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Marz wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>>>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>>>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>>>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>>>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>>>>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>>>>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>>>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>>>>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>> Derek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>>>>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>>>>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>>>>> >> the lights
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Well done!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>>>>> care).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>>>>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>>>>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>>>>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>>>>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>>>>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>>>>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>>>>
>>>>>And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>>>>
>>>>My parents were happily married thanks. Yours?
>>>
>>>But do you go through red lights?
>>
>>Can't you even read your own post? Let's parse the sentence:-
>>
>>The "you *******s" presumably means all cyclists. Please explain if it
>>doesn't.
>>
>>"most" presumably means "less than all". Please explain if it doesn't.
>>
>>Therefore I assume you believe all cyclists to be *******s, but all
>>cyclists don't go through red lights.
>
>You've been breathing in too many diesel fumes.

You don't imagine the filter thingy on your car (I assume you are old
enough to drive) will stop diesel fumes do you?
>
>>So, even though I don't go through red lights (either whilst cycling
>>or driving) I presume from that you think I am a *******, which I have
>>explained to you I am not.
>>
>>Is that simple enough for you? Do please let me know if not & I'll
>>try to make it even simpler, difficult as it may be.
>
>Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
>sense.

I have a perfectly acceptable life thank you, and I am no more faggot
than *******.

[Marz]

On Feb 11, 3:44*pm, (Graz) wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:53:41 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 11, 9:38=A0am, (Graz) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Feb 10, 9:33=3DA0pm, (Graz) wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 10, 12:49=3D3DA0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)=
> >uk>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 200=
> >9
> >> >> >> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
> >> >> >> >Marz wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wro=
> >te:
> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" =
> >.uk=3D
>
> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
> >> >> >> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Derek
> >> >> >> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
> >> >> >> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for ano=
> >the=3D
> >> >r
> >> >> >> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvr=
> >e.
> >> >> >> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to =
> >mak=3D
> >> >e a
> >> >> >> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traff=
> >ic =3D
> >> >is
> >> >> >> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>
> >> >> >> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cycli=
> >st
> >> >> >> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his b=
> >obb=3D
> >> >le
> >> >> >> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>
> >> >> >> >>> Derek
>
> >> >> >> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filte=
> >rin=3D
> >> >g
> >> >> >> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the l=
> >eft
> >> >> >> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of y=
> >ou =3D
> >> >at
> >> >> >> >> the lights
>
> >> >> >> >...which is a *correct* response.
>
> >> >> >> >Well done!
>
> >> >> >> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
> >> >> >> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
> >> >> >> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steeri=
> >ng
> >> >> >> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
> >> >> >> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
> >> >> >> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
> >> >> >> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>
> >> >> >> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
> >> >> >> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
> >> >> >> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
> >> >> >> care).
>
> >> >> >I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
> >> >> >sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
> >> >> >bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>
> >> >> >In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
> >> >> >block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
> >> >> >passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
> >> >> >after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond wit=
> >h
> >> >> >'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>
> >> >> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do..
>
> >> >Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
> >> >of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed to
> >> >register my presence.
>
> >> >I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.
>
> >> >I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
> >> >light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
> >> >the light's changed.
>
> >> You obviously see what you want to see. =A0In London, a cyclist who
> >> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>
> >So you're admitting to not observing all the other cyclists who don't
> >run red lights. Do you live in London or just read the Daily Wail?
>
> Can you read?

Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
ignorant liar.

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:44:04 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:43:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:44:58 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:37:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:33:34 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:33:28 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Feb 10, 12:49=A0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb 2009
>>>>>>>> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Marz wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" >
>>>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traffic
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>>> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>>>>>>>> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for another
>>>>>>>> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.
>>>>>>>> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver to make a
>>>>>>>> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking traffic is
>>>>>>>> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cyclist
>>>>>>>> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove his bobble
>>>>>>>> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>> Derek
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from filtering
>>>>>>>> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to the left
>>>>>>>> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead of you at
>>>>>>>> >> the lights
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Well done!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to get
>>>>>>>> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>>>>>>>> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the steering
>>>>>>>> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror as
>>>>>>>> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>>>>>>>> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>>>>>>>> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>>>>>>>> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>>>>>>>> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without due
>>>>>>>> care).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
>>>>>>>sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>>>>>>>bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>>>>>>>block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I've
>>>>>>>passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>>>>>>>after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond with
>>>>>>>'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do.
>>>>>
>>>>>My parents were happily married thanks. Yours?
>>>>
>>>>But do you go through red lights?
>>>
>>>Can't you even read your own post? Let's parse the sentence:-
>>>
>>>The "you *******s" presumably means all cyclists. Please explain if it
>>>doesn't.
>>>
>>>"most" presumably means "less than all". Please explain if it doesn't.
>>>
>>>Therefore I assume you believe all cyclists to be *******s, but all
>>>cyclists don't go through red lights.
>>
>>You've been breathing in too many diesel fumes.
>
>You don't imagine the filter thingy on your car (I assume you are old
>enough to drive) will stop diesel fumes do you?

I'm not breathing as many as you (I assume you are old enough to cycle
on the roads).

>>>So, even though I don't go through red lights (either whilst cycling
>>>or driving) I presume from that you think I am a *******, which I have
>>>explained to you I am not.
>>>
>>>Is that simple enough for you? Do please let me know if not & I'll
>>>try to make it even simpler, difficult as it may be.
>>
>>Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
>>sense.
>
>I have a perfectly acceptable life thank you, and I am no more faggot
>than *******.

So what's your excuse for being a cyclist?

[Graz]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:12:52 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:

>On Feb 11, 3:44=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:53:41 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Feb 11, 9:38=3DA0am, (Graz) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 10, 9:33=3D3DA0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:13 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >On Feb 10, 12:49=3D3D3DA0pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me=
>(dot)=3D
>> >uk>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> JNugent > considered Tue, 10 Feb =
>200=3D
>> >9
>> >> >> >> 17:28:23 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Marz wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Feb 10, 6:11 am, Derek Geldard > =
>wro=3D
>> >te:
>> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:18:58 -0000, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.=
>org=3D
>> >.uk=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> By pulling over to the left he creates more room for traf=
>fic
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> overtaking properly on his right.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> Derek
>> >> >> >> >>>>> I've already reminded him/them of that.
>> >> >> >> >>>> So you propose obstructing a cyclist to make it easier for =
>ano=3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> >r
>> >> >> >> >>>> hypothetical driver to perform a dangerous overtaking manoe=
>uvr=3D
>> >e.
>> >> >> >> >>> Waiting at traffic lights in my lane is part of my manouver =
>to =3D
>> >mak=3D3D
>> >> >e a
>> >> >> >> >>> permitted left turn, and the correct place for overtaking tr=
>aff=3D
>> >ic =3D3D
>> >> >is
>> >> >> >> >>> the lane to my right which might well be empty.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> However, the rule of the road is keep to the left, so any cy=
>cli=3D
>> >st
>> >> >> >> >>> trying to sneak through between me and the kurb can shove hi=
>s b=3D
>> >obb=3D3D
>> >> >le
>> >> >> >> >>> hat where the sun don't shine AFAIAC.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Derek
>>
>> >> >> >> >> I've had so many drivers pull to the left blocking me from fi=
>lte=3D
>> >rin=3D3D
>> >> >g
>> >> >> >> >> forward that I just don't care any more. Fine, you more to th=
>e l=3D
>> >eft
>> >> >> >> >> and I'll overtake to the right, I'm still going to be ahead o=
>f y=3D
>> >ou =3D3D
>> >> >at
>> >> >> >> >> the lights
>>
>> >> >> >> >...which is a *correct* response.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Well done!
>>
>> >> >> >> Until the time when the car pulls to the left, waits for you to =
>get
>> >> >> >> alongside the rear wing, and then pulls a U turn.
>> >> >> >> And since so few of them have discovered the stalk under the ste=
>eri=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> >> wheel that operates the turn indicators, and regard the mirror a=
>s
>> >> >> >> something for personal grooming, you've almost certainly got
>> >> >> >> bugger-all chance of them even knowing you are there, much less
>> >> >> >> warning you that they are about to make an attempt on your life.
>>
>> >> >> >> The "correct" procedure is for everyone to maintain their line,
>> >> >> >> neither deliberately blocking (driving without reasonable
>> >> >> >> consideration), or taking stupid risks to pass (driving without =
>due
>> >> >> >> care).
>>
>> >> >> >I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as =
>it
>> >> >> >sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
>> >> >> >bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.
>>
>> >> >> >In general I've found that a driver who has pulled to the left to
>> >> >> >block me has seen me and the silent messaging I'm getting is,' I'v=
>e
>> >> >> >passed you once and I really don't want to have to pass you again
>> >> >> >after the lights have changed, so stay there,' to which I respond =
>wit=3D
>> >h
>> >> >> >'tough titty' by moving to the front of the queue.
>>
>> >> >> And, no doubt, going through a red light as most of you *******s do=
>.
>>
>> >> >Not as often as you think, in the last year, during about 5000 miles
>> >> >of cycling I think I jumped twice. Both times when the light failed t=
>o
>> >> >register my presence.
>>
>> >> >I have seen about 10 cyclists jump red lights in the last year.
>>
>> >> >I have lost count of the number of times I've seen cars running a red
>> >> >light. Either racing to beat a red or too busy on the phone to notice
>> >> >the light's changed.
>>
>> >> You obviously see what you want to see. =3DA0In London, a cyclist who
>> >> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>>
>> >So you're admitting to not observing all the other cyclists who don't
>> >run red lights. Do you live in London or just read the Daily Wail?
>>
>> Can you read?
>
>Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
>in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
>ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
>ignorant liar.

The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon.
I bet you read the Socialist Worker.

[AndyC]

"OG" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's no problem with passing on the left

Apart from the fact that drivers do not expect you to be there. Van drivers
and HGVs won't see you there. That you will be hidden from oncoming traffic
turning right. That traffic pulling out of a side road on the left will
probably not see you or give way to you (or may just ram you into the side
of the vehicle you are passing), and that passengers of stationary cars
sometimes throw the doors open. Other than that, no problem at all, really.
>
>> Can you have so soon forgotten the fuss about cyclists being squashed
>> when trying to undertake left-turning traffic?
>
> That's not the same as filtering.
>
>> Overtake on the right - that's all anyone is saying.
>
> It's what you are saying - what we are saying is don't block cyclists from
> passing on the left.

Most cyclists prefer a left-side pass presumably because they feel safer
there. However with a right-side pass you are far more visible to other
traffic. There is a difference between danger and fear.

[AndyC]

"Graz" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>As a motorcyclist it is (usually) clearly obvious when a cager is being
>>courteous, by their pulling over to allow you to pass. The problem with
>>bicycles is that the cagers don't seem to know how to behave courteously.
>>They don't know whether to overtake and get ahead, hold back (and perhaps
>>annoy the cagers behind) or get-as-close-as-possible behind revving their
>>engine so they can get by quickly at the first opportunity :-(
>
> Where did you get this ridiculous idea that cyclists deserve any kind
> of courtesy?

I guess it is because rather than thinking that cagers are nasty, vindictive
and discourteous, I prefer to think that they just don't understand.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.

You'd better get yourself some new glasses (preferably not of the
rose-tinted variety), before you cause a serious accident.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I am Wan, for I am pursued by the Army of Plums.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In ,
> Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
>> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>
> You'd better get yourself some new glasses (preferably not of the
> rose-tinted variety), before you cause a serious accident.

What do you mean?

He is absolutely right in his observation.

It is comparatively rare to see a cyclist stop at a red traffic light in
Central London, and although the situation is better in the suburbs, it isn't
all that much better.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
JNugent > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> What do you mean?
>
> He is absolutely right in his observation.
>
> It is comparatively rare to see a cyclist stop at a red traffic light
> in Central London, and although the situation is better in the
> suburbs, it isn't all that much better.

It is apparent that I emanate such powerful Law-Rays that the cyclists with
whom I shared the roads of Central London for almost twenty-five years
automatically stop at red lights without even knowing why.

If this is the case, I implore World+Dog to petition Drongo Brown to appoint
me as Home Secretary. Ecstacy and marijuana would be downgraded to class C,
the money earmarked for farcical databases would be spent on something
useful and Russell Brand would be made punishable by up to ten yearsin
Belmarsh, married to the person with the most cigarettes.

If it is not the case, then I implore JNugent to buy some new spectacles,
for the reason stated above.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Wood is an excellent material for making trees, but is otherwise
not to be trusted.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In ,
> JNugent > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
> us:
>
>> What do you mean?
>>
>> He is absolutely right in his observation.
>>
>> It is comparatively rare to see a cyclist stop at a red traffic light
>> in Central London, and although the situation is better in the
>> suburbs, it isn't all that much better.
>
> It is apparent that I emanate such powerful Law-Rays that the cyclists with
> whom I shared the roads of Central London for almost twenty-five years
> automatically stop at red lights without even knowing why.
>
> If this is the case, I implore World+Dog to petition Drongo Brown to appoint
> me as Home Secretary. Ecstacy and marijuana would be downgraded to class C,
> the money earmarked for farcical databases would be spent on something
> useful and Russell Brand would be made punishable by up to ten yearsin
> Belmarsh, married to the person with the most cigarettes.
>
> If it is not the case, then I implore JNugent to buy some new spectacles,
> for the reason stated above.

I don't know which period of twenty-five years you are creferring to, but it
seems likely that it does no encompass the present day.

Please, just take a trip to London (esp. The City) and watch...

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:00:39 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>In ,
>Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
>> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>
>You'd better get yourself some new glasses (preferably not of the
>rose-tinted variety), before you cause a serious accident.

Logic failure, lycraboi.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:25:31 -0000, "AndyC"
> wrote:

>
>"Graz" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>As a motorcyclist it is (usually) clearly obvious when a cager is being
>>>courteous, by their pulling over to allow you to pass. The problem with
>>>bicycles is that the cagers don't seem to know how to behave courteously.
>>>They don't know whether to overtake and get ahead, hold back (and perhaps
>>>annoy the cagers behind) or get-as-close-as-possible behind revving their
>>>engine so they can get by quickly at the first opportunity :-(
>>
>> Where did you get this ridiculous idea that cyclists deserve any kind
>> of courtesy?
>
>I guess it is because rather than thinking that cagers are nasty, vindictive
>and discourteous, I prefer to think that they just don't understand.

So-called "cagers" do understand that cyclists totally disregard the
rules of the road, and for that reason deserve no courtesy whatsoever.

[OG]

"AndyC" > wrote in message
...
>
> "OG" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> There's no problem with passing on the left
>
> Apart from the fact that drivers do not expect you to be there.

Are you excusing drivers from having to look ? Of course, any road user
should be constantly checking around them, but you can't just go by what you
'expect', particularly before making any changing direction or lane. If a
driver is in a stationary or slow moving line of traffic (which is where
cyclists are more likely to be passing on the left) they should be
'expected' to look

> Van drivers and HGVs won't see you there.

Ditto - I'm not referring here to cases where a cyclist attempts to pass a
left indicating vehicle. That is a case where the cyclist has put
him/herself in danger.

> That you will be hidden from oncoming traffic turning right.

Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware of
that risk when approaching junctions on the left where drivers have left a
gap for oncoming traffic to turn into it. I'm not saying that cyclists
switch their brains off too.

> That traffic pulling out of a side road on the left will probably not see
> you or give way to you (or may just ram you into the side of the vehicle
> you are passing),

Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware of
that risk when approaching junctions on the left. I'm not saying that
cyclists switch their brains off too. In this case of course, the prime
responsibility is on the driver pulling out to actually look rather than
just going by what they 'expect'.

> and that passengers of stationary cars sometimes throw the doors open.
> Other than that, no problem at all, really.

Again, this is a problem with car users not looking. Get motorists used to
the idea of cyclists and they will know to look.

>>
>>> Can you have so soon forgotten the fuss about cyclists being squashed
>>> when trying to undertake left-turning traffic?
>>
>> That's not the same as filtering.
>>
>>> Overtake on the right - that's all anyone is saying.
>>
>> It's what you are saying - what we are saying is don't block cyclists
>> from passing on the left.
>
> Most cyclists prefer a left-side pass presumably because they feel safer
> there. However with a right-side pass you are far more visible to other
> traffic. There is a difference between danger and fear.

Many cyclists prefer to make a left side pass because it works well with
stop-start traffic (as in my post that kicked off this bit of the
discussion), and does not result in a cyclist being 'stranded' on the right
with fast moving traffic overtaking them on their left and preventing them
from merging into the stream of traffic.

[Peter Grange]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:21:31 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:59:37 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:12:07 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
>>>>>sense.
>>>>
>>>>I have a perfectly acceptable life thank you, and I am no more faggot
>>>>than *******.
>>>
>>>So what's your excuse for being a cyclist?
>>
>>Not excuse, reason. For excercise (sic).
>
>You can't even spell the ****ing word.
>
Oops! Apologies. Nice to know you can spell though.
>>Do you get any? (apart from your
>>right hand that is).
>
>Apparently, bicycle saddles cause impotence by pressing on vital
>parts. Using your right hand may be all you'll be able to do in a few
>years. If not already.

Do you have a source for that? My 2 kids would appear to be evidence
to the contrary.

[Steve Firth]

Dave Larrington > wrote:

> It is apparent that I emanate such powerful Law-Rays that the cyclists with
> whom I shared the roads of Central London for almost twenty-five years
> automatically stop at red lights without even knowing why.

Is this the bizarre cyclist form of "stopping" at the lights? You know
the one that involves stopping, then moving forward into the junction
then pedalling off through the red light? Although there are many
variations such as the "pavement swerve", the "pick it up and run with
it" and the "wrong side of the bollards" gambits.

I drive though Chiswick, S/Bush and Camden most days. I've never seen a
cyclist stop for the lights. Indeed most don't even seem to notice that
they are there.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:01:44 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:21:31 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:59:37 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:12:07 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
>>>>>>sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a perfectly acceptable life thank you, and I am no more faggot
>>>>>than *******.
>>>>
>>>>So what's your excuse for being a cyclist?
>>>
>>>Not excuse, reason. For excercise (sic).
>>
>>You can't even spell the ****ing word.
>>
>Oops! Apologies. Nice to know you can spell though.

I also know what a red light means.

>>>Do you get any? (apart from your
>>>right hand that is).
>>
>>Apparently, bicycle saddles cause impotence by pressing on vital
>>parts. Using your right hand may be all you'll be able to do in a few
>>years. If not already.
>
>Do you have a source for that?

Yes.

>My 2 kids would appear to be evidence
>to the contrary.

What makes you think they're yours?

[AndyC]

"OG" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you excusing drivers from having to look ? Of course, any road user
> should be constantly checking around them, but you can't just go by what
> you 'expect', particularly before making any changing direction or lane.
> If a driver is in a stationary or slow moving line of traffic (which is
> where cyclists are more likely to be passing on the left) they should be
> 'expected' to look

I am not excusing them, drivers just *don't* look. Maybe they *should* be
expected to look but since they habitually don't, then I will not take the
chance that they will and have done.

>> Van drivers and HGVs won't see you there.
>
> Ditto - I'm not referring here to cases where a cyclist attempts to pass a
> left indicating vehicle. That is a case where the cyclist has put
> him/herself in danger.

Van and HGV drivers cannot see to the side due to a lack of windows in the
vehicle. If you want to rely on a driver checking their mirrors and be
certain that they checked well and that there were no blind spots, that's up
to you. I don't. I habitually check over the shoulder, even when driving a
car, who else does? Not many cagers do, its a biker thing. And do they
always indicate? Nah!...

>> That you will be hidden from oncoming traffic turning right.
>
> Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware
> of that risk when approaching junctions on the left where drivers have
> left a gap for oncoming traffic to turn into it. I'm not saying that
> cyclists switch their brains off too.

That's "one of the problems"...

>> That traffic pulling out of a side road on the left will probably not see
>> you or give way to you (or may just ram you into the side of the vehicle
>> you are passing),
>
> Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware
> of that risk when approaching junctions on the left. I'm not saying that
> cyclists switch their brains off too. In this case of course, the prime
> responsibility is on the driver pulling out to actually look rather than
> just going by what they 'expect'.

Must disagree. The prime responsibility for my own safety rests with me.
Drivers are often in a hurry, they are sometimes angry because of traffic
delaying them. This leads to carelessness on their part. That can lead to a
SMIDSY.

>> and that passengers of stationary cars sometimes throw the doors open.
>> Other than that, no problem at all, really.
>
> Again, this is a problem with car users not looking. Get motorists used to
> the idea of cyclists and they will know to look.

Problem here is not so much the driver, but the passenger, who may well not
be a driver at all and may possibly be a child who just throws open the car
door. I teach my own kids about checking carefully before openning (and
shutting) car doors. How many other parents do? Parents often don't think
that much. Kids don't think that much. Non-driving passengers often don't
think that much. If you want to teach the world to be more safety concious
then great. Personally I just want to reduce the risk of injury to myself
and those around me.

> Many cyclists prefer to make a left side pass because it works well with
> stop-start traffic (as in my post that kicked off this bit of the
> discussion), and does not result in a cyclist being 'stranded' on the
> right with fast moving traffic overtaking them on their left and
> preventing them from merging into the stream of traffic.

I disagree. Stop-start traffic is better filtered on the right. It's
unlikely that you will ever get "stranded in the middle" unless you are
trying to overtake a long queue and the speed is too fast. When filtering,
you need to overtake one vehicle at a time, making sure there are gaps and
that you are able to merge back in again.

[AndyC]

"Graz" > wrote in message
...

>>> Where did you get this ridiculous idea that cyclists deserve any kind
>>> of courtesy?
>>
>>I guess it is because rather than thinking that cagers are nasty,
>>vindictive
>>and discourteous, I prefer to think that they just don't understand.
>
> So-called "cagers" do understand that cyclists totally disregard the
> rules of the road, and for that reason deserve no courtesy whatsoever.

I tend to think we should be courteous to all other road users, whether they
disregard the rules of the road or not. We should not sink to their level.

The whole concept of "regard for the rules of the road" is an interesting
one though because it is subjective and varies from person to person
depending on their own POV. Many cyclists seem to think it to be OK to ride
on the pavement, overtake on the left, and jump red lights. Many cagers seem
to think it is OK to exceed the speed limit, overtake to close, or drive too
close behind, and err... jump red lights. At the same time they will be
bellowing at someone else who is doing something which they don't like.

Ho hum...

[Adrian]

"AndyC" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> Are you excusing drivers from having to look ? Of course, any road user
>> should be constantly checking around them, but you can't just go by
>> what you 'expect', particularly before making any changing direction or
>> lane. If a driver is in a stationary or slow moving line of traffic
>> (which is where cyclists are more likely to be passing on the left)
>> they should be 'expected' to look

> I am not excusing them, drivers just *don't* look. Maybe they *should*
> be expected to look but since they habitually don't, then I will not
> take the chance that they will and have done.

*ding*

It's all very well being in the right. But I'd rather be cautious and
unflat.

> The prime responsibility for my own safety rests with me.

Of course it does. When it comes down to it, nobody else has quite such
an incentive to look after YOUR safety as you do.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
JNugent > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> I don't know which period of twenty-five years you are creferring to,
> but it seems likely that it does no encompass the present day.

1982-2007.

> Please, just take a trip to London (esp. The City) and watch...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Got a horn like a unicorn, man, except it's a whale!

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Steve Firth > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> I drive though Chiswick, S/Bush and Camden most days. I've never seen
> a cyclist stop for the lights. Indeed most don't even seem to notice
> that they are there.

What is this, a People Who Need New Glasses Convention?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Stop it! You're scarin' the Hippo...

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:00:39 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> > wrote:
>
>> In ,
>> Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>
>>> You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
>>> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>>
>> You'd better get yourself some new glasses (preferably not of the
>> rose-tinted variety), before you cause a serious accident.
>
> Logic failure, lycraboi.

I am beginning to suspect that you're actually a refined version of the
****-O-Tron:

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-****-o-tron/

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
a yo-yo" - Enoch Root.

[Peter Grange]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:57:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:01:44 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:21:31 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:59:37 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:12:07 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
>>>>>>>sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have a perfectly acceptable life thank you, and I am no more faggot
>>>>>>than *******.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what's your excuse for being a cyclist?
>>>>
>>>>Not excuse, reason. For excercise (sic).
>>>
>>>You can't even spell the ****ing word.
>>>
>>Oops! Apologies. Nice to know you can spell though.
>
>I also know what a red light means.
>
>>>>Do you get any? (apart from your
>>>>right hand that is).
>>>
>>>Apparently, bicycle saddles cause impotence by pressing on vital
>>>parts. Using your right hand may be all you'll be able to do in a few
>>>years. If not already.
>>
>>Do you have a source for that?
>
>Yes.
Very helpful.
>
>>My 2 kids would appear to be evidence
>>to the contrary.
>
>What makes you think they're yours?

And you're the one telling me to get a life.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:43:29 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:57:21 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:01:44 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:21:31 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:59:37 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:12:07 GMT, (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Get a life, faggot. Go hug a tree or something. You know it makes
>>>>>>>>sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have a perfectly acceptable life thank you, and I am no more faggot
>>>>>>>than *******.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what's your excuse for being a cyclist?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not excuse, reason. For excercise (sic).
>>>>
>>>>You can't even spell the ****ing word.
>>>>
>>>Oops! Apologies. Nice to know you can spell though.
>>
>>I also know what a red light means.
>>
>>>>>Do you get any? (apart from your
>>>>>right hand that is).
>>>>
>>>>Apparently, bicycle saddles cause impotence by pressing on vital
>>>>parts. Using your right hand may be all you'll be able to do in a few
>>>>years. If not already.
>>>
>>>Do you have a source for that?
>>
>>Yes.
>Very helpful.

You're welcome!

>>>My 2 kids would appear to be evidence
>>>to the contrary.
>>
>>What makes you think they're yours?
>
>And you're the one telling me to get a life.

That's right. The sooner the better.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:24:27 -0000, "AndyC"
> wrote:

>
>"Graz" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>> Where did you get this ridiculous idea that cyclists deserve any kind
>>>> of courtesy?
>>>
>>>I guess it is because rather than thinking that cagers are nasty,
>>>vindictive
>>>and discourteous, I prefer to think that they just don't understand.
>>
>> So-called "cagers" do understand that cyclists totally disregard the
>> rules of the road, and for that reason deserve no courtesy whatsoever.
>
>I tend to think we should be courteous to all other road users, whether they
>disregard the rules of the road or not. We should not sink to their level.

I tend to think otherwise.

>The whole concept of "regard for the rules of the road" is an interesting
>one though because it is subjective and varies from person to person
>depending on their own POV. Many cyclists seem to think it to be OK to ride
>on the pavement, overtake on the left, and jump red lights. Many cagers seem
>to think it is OK to exceed the speed limit, overtake to close, or drive too
>close behind, and err... jump red lights. At the same time they will be
>bellowing at someone else who is doing something which they don't like.
>
>Ho hum...

The difference being that in the case of cyclists it's the majority.

[OG]

"AndyC" > wrote in message
...
>
> "OG" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Are you excusing drivers from having to look ? Of course, any road user
>> should be constantly checking around them, but you can't just go by what
>> you 'expect', particularly before making any changing direction or lane.
>> If a driver is in a stationary or slow moving line of traffic (which is
>> where cyclists are more likely to be passing on the left) they should be
>> 'expected' to look
>
> I am not excusing them, drivers just *don't* look. Maybe they *should* be
> expected to look but since they habitually don't, then I will not take the
> chance that they will and have done.
>
>>> Van drivers and HGVs won't see you there.
>>
>> Ditto - I'm not referring here to cases where a cyclist attempts to pass
>> a left indicating vehicle. That is a case where the cyclist has put
>> him/herself in danger.
>
> Van and HGV drivers cannot see to the side due to a lack of windows in the
> vehicle. If you want to rely on a driver checking their mirrors and be
> certain that they checked well and that there were no blind spots, that's
> up to you. I don't. I habitually check over the shoulder, even when
> driving a car, who else does? Not many cagers do, its a biker thing. And
> do they always indicate? Nah!...
>
>>> That you will be hidden from oncoming traffic turning right.
>>
>> Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware
>> of that risk when approaching junctions on the left where drivers have
>> left a gap for oncoming traffic to turn into it. I'm not saying that
>> cyclists switch their brains off too.
>
> That's "one of the problems"...
>
>>> That traffic pulling out of a side road on the left will probably not
>>> see you or give way to you (or may just ram you into the side of the
>>> vehicle you are passing),
>>
>> Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware
>> of that risk when approaching junctions on the left. I'm not saying that
>> cyclists switch their brains off too. In this case of course, the prime
>> responsibility is on the driver pulling out to actually look rather than
>> just going by what they 'expect'.
>
> Must disagree. The prime responsibility for my own safety rests with me.
> Drivers are often in a hurry, they are sometimes angry because of traffic
> delaying them. This leads to carelessness on their part. That can lead to
> a SMIDSY.

So you would say to any incompetent driver "Sorry mate, I wasn't riding
defensively enough, sorry to have got under your wheels"?
I agree that cyclists must be aware as the come up to such junctions and
should match their speed to the space available for stopping - that is why 2
of the 3 sentences in my response are along those lines.

Aside from that, I would suggest that a cyclist on the right is more at risk
from an unsighted motorist turning right out of a junction on the left as
the motorist and cyclist will be obstructed from each others view by the
line of traffic in between.


>>> and that passengers of stationary cars sometimes throw the doors open.
>>> Other than that, no problem at all, really.
>>
>> Again, this is a problem with car users not looking. Get motorists used
>> to the idea of cyclists and they will know to look.
>
> Problem here is not so much the driver, but the passenger, who may well
> not be a driver at all and may possibly be a child who just throws open
> the car door. I teach my own kids about checking carefully before openning
> (and shutting) car doors. How many other parents do? Parents often don't
> think that much. Kids don't think that much. Non-driving passengers often
> don't think that much. If you want to teach the world to be more safety
> concious then great. Personally I just want to reduce the risk of injury
> to myself and those around me.
>
>> Many cyclists prefer to make a left side pass because it works well with
>> stop-start traffic (as in my post that kicked off this bit of the
>> discussion), and does not result in a cyclist being 'stranded' on the
>> right with fast moving traffic overtaking them on their left and
>> preventing them from merging into the stream of traffic.
>
> I disagree. Stop-start traffic is better filtered on the right. It's
> unlikely that you will ever get "stranded in the middle" unless you are
> trying to overtake a long queue and the speed is too fast. When filtering,
> you need to overtake one vehicle at a time, making sure there are gaps and
> that you are able to merge back in again.

The original sub-thread was about a cyclist being obstructed when a long
queue (60 yards) was developing coming up to red traffic lights. Gaps close
up and there is a strong likelihood of getting stranded.

Given the evidence of some posts here I would not rely on motorists making
any allowance to cyclists whatsoever - and a good chance that at least some
will deliberately drive illegally in order to dissuade cyclists from using
the road at all. I'm sure that you as a biker will familiar with some
drivers pulling right to prevent you from 'sneaking up on the outside'. No
doubt, the same will apply to cyclists too.

[judith]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:43:12 -0000, "OG" >
wrote:

>
>"AndyC" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "OG" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> There's no problem with passing on the left
>>
>> Apart from the fact that drivers do not expect you to be there.
>
>Are you excusing drivers from having to look ? Of course, any road user
>should be constantly checking around them, but you can't just go by what you
>'expect', particularly before making any changing direction or lane. If a
>driver is in a stationary or slow moving line of traffic (which is where
>cyclists are more likely to be passing on the left) they should be
>'expected' to look


This appears to be really difficult for you - you really seem to be
struggling. Here is some advice.

Many motorists will probably not see you as you undercut them on the
left.

Most will see you as you overtake on the right - where they expect you
to do so.

Many cyclists are knocked off their bikes and seriously injured or
killed when undercutting vehicles on their left.

Undercutting vehicles on the left is dangerous.

Don't do it.

(Are you another who thinks that the HC "endorses filtering"?)


--

The Highway Code endorses filtering - Ian Smith
(He just can't find where it does so.)

[Marz]

On Feb 11, 10:13*pm, (Graz) wrote:
>
> >Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
> >in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
> >ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
> >ignorant liar.
>
> The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
> The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon. *
> I bet you read the Socialist Worker.

So no then to reading the Daily Wail. You're an ignorant liar from
London who we know see is also a right wing fascist. The more you type
the more amazed I am with your ability to drag your knuckles off the
floor to reach the keyboard. Of course you can't see the other
cyclists, that heavy set scowling forehead of yours severely limits
your field of vision.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:39:24 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>In ,
>Steve Firth > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> I drive though Chiswick, S/Bush and Camden most days. I've never seen
>> a cyclist stop for the lights. Indeed most don't even seem to notice
>> that they are there.
>
>What is this, a People Who Need New Glasses Convention?

If it is, it's you *******s who need them. I can see a red light 200
yards away. You can't even see one when you're in front of one.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:40:27 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>In ,
>Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:00:39 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In ,
>>> Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>>
>>>> You obviously see what you want to see. In London, a cyclist who
>>>> stops at a red light is the exception, not the rule.
>>>
>>> You'd better get yourself some new glasses (preferably not of the
>>> rose-tinted variety), before you cause a serious accident.
>>
>> Logic failure, lycraboi.
>
>I am beginning to suspect that you're actually a refined version of the
>****-O-Tron:
>
>http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-****-o-tron/

I have always suspected that you're a ****head, lycraboi.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:56:03 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:

>On Feb 11, 10:13=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
>> >in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
>> >ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
>> >ignorant liar.
>>
>> The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
>> The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon. =A0
>> I bet you read the Socialist Worker.
>
>So no then to reading the Daily Wail. You're an ignorant liar from
>London who we know (sic) see is also a right wing fascist.

Ah, we now see you're illiterate as well as being a cretinous cyclist.

>The more you type
>the more amazed I am with your ability to drag your knuckles off the
>floor to reach the keyboard.

And this from someone who writes "know" for "now". LOL

>Of course you can't see the other
>cyclists, that heavy set scowling forehead of yours severely limits
>your field of vision.

You only have one eyebrow, don't you? A unibrow, I believe it's
called.

[Judith's best friend]

Marz wrote:
> On Feb 11, 10:13 pm, (Graz) wrote:
>
>>>Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
>>>in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
>>>ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
>>>ignorant liar.
>>
>>The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
>>The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon.
>>I bet you read the Socialist Worker.
>
>
> So no then to reading the Daily Wail. You're an ignorant liar from
> London who we know see is also a right wing fascist.

Nope - it's more likely that the reason he never sees cyclists stopping
for red lights in London is because he doesn't live in London.

He has this opinion because it's the 'herd view' of cyclists from a
vocal section on urd.

[Steve Firth]

Dave Larrington > wrote:

> In ,
> Steve Firth > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
> > I drive though Chiswick, S/Bush and Camden most days. I've never seen
> > a cyclist stop for the lights. Indeed most don't even seem to notice
> > that they are there.
>
> What is this, a People Who Need New Glasses Convention?

No I think it's the "Dave Larrington rides around with his eyes shut
convention."

I doubt that glasses which I don't need would make me blind to the fact
that cyclists ignore red lights[1]. What do you need to make the scales
fall from your eyes?



[1] They also ignore one-way streets, keep left signs, give way signs
and pedestrians on pavements so the red light ignoring is just one
failure in a catalogue of ****wittery.

[AndyC]

"OG" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you would say to any incompetent driver "Sorry mate, I wasn't riding
> defensively enough, sorry to have got under your wheels"?

Err no. But I would have done my best to not be in that position.

> Aside from that, I would suggest that a cyclist on the right is more at
> risk from an unsighted motorist turning right out of a junction on the
> left as the motorist and cyclist will be obstructed from each others view
> by the line of traffic in between.

If I were passing a junction and if there was any likelyhood of traffic
pulling out of that junction, I would be far enough over to the right to
ensure that traffic does not overtake me (at that point), to avoid being
sandwiched between the two. I would not deliberately put myself in that
position by filtering on the left. I take your point, but if you did get a
left pull and you were on the right, there would be more distance between
you to anticipate what is going to happen, to stop and let them go. If you
are closely passing their front bumper on the left, you do not have that
choice.

> Given the evidence of some posts here I would not rely on motorists making
> any allowance to cyclists whatsoever - and a good chance that at least
> some will deliberately drive illegally in order to dissuade cyclists from
> using the road at all. I'm sure that you as a biker will familiar with
> some drivers pulling right to prevent you from 'sneaking up on the
> outside'. No doubt, the same will apply to cyclists too.

I tend to think that when drivers do edge out to the right, they do so to
get better visibility of the road ahead. Blocking a filtering motorbike is
just the result of that action. IOW it is not intentional. They just don't
think about what might be behind.

I do find that a number of drivers overtake cyclists and cut-in rather
sharply, brake, or otherwise block to the left. Again I do not think it is
intentional that they are blocking it's just that as soon as the cyclist is
out of their peripheral vision they are forgotton about. They are often
yeilding to oncoming traffic. Again, they do not think. :-(

[Jon North]

> I always despair when I see cyclists waiting in line with cars as it
> sort of defeats (for me) the whole point of commuting to work on a
> bike. To avoid getting stuck in traffic.

Absolutely, being smaller & more manoeuvrable than cars they should
overtake the cars.

Of course overtaking should always be done on the *right* hand side,
where car drivers expect smaller vehicles to overtake, where there
aren't any nasty pedestrians to hit, crap in the gutter to puncture
tyres, slippery drains & standing water to negotiate & how the HC says
to overtake.

[AndyC]

"Graz" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:24:27 -0000, "AndyC"
> > wrote:
>>
>>I tend to think we should be courteous to all other road users, whether
>>they
>>disregard the rules of the road or not. We should not sink to their level.
>
> I tend to think otherwise.

Obviously...

>>The whole concept of "regard for the rules of the road" is an interesting
>>one though because it is subjective and varies from person to person
>>depending on their own POV. Many cyclists seem to think it to be OK to
>>ride
>>on the pavement, overtake on the left, and jump red lights. Many cagers
>>seem
>>to think it is OK to exceed the speed limit, overtake to close, or drive
>>too
>>close behind, and err... jump red lights. At the same time they will be
>>bellowing at someone else who is doing something which they don't like.
>>
>>Ho hum...
>
> The difference being that in the case of cyclists it's the majority.

I don't think there is any difference, just different set of rules that they
disregard.

[Jon North]

> Actually, every time statistics have been gathered, more cars pass at
> red than bikes do.

I only seen a bicycle jump a red light a few times in my life - on all
occasions the rider has checked that the road is clear first (not that
that necessarily makes it OK).

However, I've seen countless bicyclists see the light change to red, use
the lower pavement for the pedestrian crossing to mount the kerb then
cycle over a pedestrian crossing with all the peds walking on it (the
reason the lights have changed to red) before using the lower pavement
for the next crossing to return to the carriageway.

I've only seen one car driver do that & that was on a Police Stop! video.

[Jon North]

AndyC wrote:
> "OG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are you excusing drivers from having to look ? Of course, any road user
>> should be constantly checking around them, but you can't just go by what
>> you 'expect', particularly before making any changing direction or lane.
>> If a driver is in a stationary or slow moving line of traffic (which is
>> where cyclists are more likely to be passing on the left) they should be
>> 'expected' to look
>
> I am not excusing them, drivers just *don't* look. Maybe they *should* be
> expected to look but since they habitually don't, then I will not take the
> chance that they will and have done.
>
>>> Van drivers and HGVs won't see you there.
>> Ditto - I'm not referring here to cases where a cyclist attempts to pass a
>> left indicating vehicle. That is a case where the cyclist has put
>> him/herself in danger.
>
> Van and HGV drivers cannot see to the side due to a lack of windows in the
> vehicle. If you want to rely on a driver checking their mirrors and be
> certain that they checked well and that there were no blind spots, that's up
> to you. I don't. I habitually check over the shoulder, even when driving a
> car, who else does? Not many cagers do, its a biker thing. And do they
> always indicate? Nah!...
>
>>> That you will be hidden from oncoming traffic turning right.
>> Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware
>> of that risk when approaching junctions on the left where drivers have
>> left a gap for oncoming traffic to turn into it. I'm not saying that
>> cyclists switch their brains off too.
>
> That's "one of the problems"...
>
>>> That traffic pulling out of a side road on the left will probably not see
>>> you or give way to you (or may just ram you into the side of the vehicle
>>> you are passing),
>> Only a problem when approaching a junction, and a cyclist should be aware
>> of that risk when approaching junctions on the left. I'm not saying that
>> cyclists switch their brains off too. In this case of course, the prime
>> responsibility is on the driver pulling out to actually look rather than
>> just going by what they 'expect'.
>
> Must disagree. The prime responsibility for my own safety rests with me.
> Drivers are often in a hurry, they are sometimes angry because of traffic
> delaying them. This leads to carelessness on their part. That can lead to a
> SMIDSY.
>
>>> and that passengers of stationary cars sometimes throw the doors open.
>>> Other than that, no problem at all, really.
>> Again, this is a problem with car users not looking. Get motorists used to
>> the idea of cyclists and they will know to look.
>
> Problem here is not so much the driver, but the passenger, who may well not
> be a driver at all and may possibly be a child who just throws open the car
> door. I teach my own kids about checking carefully before openning (and
> shutting) car doors. How many other parents do? Parents often don't think
> that much. Kids don't think that much. Non-driving passengers often don't
> think that much. If you want to teach the world to be more safety concious
> then great. Personally I just want to reduce the risk of injury to myself
> and those around me.
>
>> Many cyclists prefer to make a left side pass because it works well with
>> stop-start traffic (as in my post that kicked off this bit of the
>> discussion), and does not result in a cyclist being 'stranded' on the
>> right with fast moving traffic overtaking them on their left and
>> preventing them from merging into the stream of traffic.
>
> I disagree. Stop-start traffic is better filtered on the right. It's
> unlikely that you will ever get "stranded in the middle" unless you are
> trying to overtake a long queue and the speed is too fast. When filtering,
> you need to overtake one vehicle at a time, making sure there are gaps and
> that you are able to merge back in again.

Well that pretty much made all the points I was going to make.

I think the huge difference in mentality here is between cyclists &
bikers. This is no doubt done to the training - No training for the
cyclists & in depth hazard awareness & risk avoidance training bikers
get. E.g, these quotes:

- The prime responsibility for my own safety rests with me.
- I will not take the chance that they will and have done.
- I habitually check over the shoulder
- Personally I just want to reduce the risk of injury to myself and
those around me.

Spot the pattern?
It's the difference between a cyclist looking for reasons to justify the
way they wish to ride compared to the bikers which is all about
self-preservation.

[Jon North]

> So you would say to any incompetent driver "Sorry mate, I wasn't riding
> defensively enough, sorry to have got under your wheels"?

No, he was clearly making the point that he plans to avoid risk.
If a car starts rolling out of a junction in front of you (in a car) do you:
a) Sound your horn, flash your lights & accelerate to stop him moving
out - after all, it's your right of way, or,
b) Assume he may have had a heart attack & no longer be in control of
the vehicle, flash your lights for awareness, switch hazards on & stop?

> Aside from that, I would suggest that a cyclist on the right is more at risk
> from an unsighted motorist turning right out of a junction on the left as
> the motorist and cyclist will be obstructed from each others view by the
> line of traffic in between.

The same applies if the situation is reversed...with the one small
exception that a car driver might actually be aware that a bike may be
approaching on the right hand side of the stationary cars.

> The original sub-thread was about a cyclist being obstructed when a long
> queue (60 yards) was developing coming up to red traffic lights. Gaps close
> up and there is a strong likelihood of getting stranded.

As cars move off the gaps open up again.

> Given the evidence of some posts here I would not rely on motorists making
> any allowance to cyclists whatsoever - and a good chance that at least some
> will deliberately drive illegally in order to dissuade cyclists from using

Isn't undertaking illegal? (Even if you call it "filtering on the left"?

> the road at all. I'm sure that you as a biker will familiar with some
> drivers pulling right to prevent you from 'sneaking up on the outside'. No
> doubt, the same will apply to cyclists too.

Yep, something for a biker to be ready for. I don't see how it then
follows that the biker or cyclist should undertake because of it though.

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Steve Firth wrote:
>
>I doubt that glasses which I don't need would make me blind to the fact

In your case I suspect brain damage is far more likely.

[OG]

"Jon North" > wrote in message
...

>
> Isn't undertaking illegal? (Even if you call it "filtering on the left"?

No it's not illegal

that's the point.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:26:44 +0000, Judith's best friend
> wrote:

>Marz wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 10:13 pm, (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
>>>>in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
>>>>ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
>>>>ignorant liar.
>>>
>>>The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
>>>The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon.
>>>I bet you read the Socialist Worker.
>>
>>
>> So no then to reading the Daily Wail. You're an ignorant liar from
>> London who we know see is also a right wing fascist.
>
>Nope - it's more likely that the reason he never sees cyclists stopping
>for red lights in London is because he doesn't live in London.

Nope - it's far more likely that YOU don't live in London.

>He has this opinion because it's the 'herd view' of cyclists from a
>vocal section on urd.

Nope again - because it's the truth.

[Marz]

On Feb 12, 9:07*am, (Graz) wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:56:03 -0800 (PST), Marz
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 11, 10:13=A0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>
> >> >Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
> >> >in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
> >> >ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
> >> >ignorant liar.
>
> >> The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
> >> The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon. =A0
> >> I bet you read the Socialist Worker.
>
> >So no then to reading the Daily Wail. You're an ignorant liar from
> >London who we know (sic) see is also a right wing fascist.
>
> Ah, we now see you're illiterate as well as being a cretinous cyclist.
>
> >The more you type
> >the more amazed I am with your ability to drag your knuckles off the
> >floor to reach the keyboard.
>
> And this from someone who writes "know" for "now". *LOL
>
> >Of course you can't see the other
> >cyclists, that heavy set scowling forehead of yours severely limits
> >your field of vision.
>
> You only have one eyebrow, don't you? *A unibrow, I believe it's
> called.

Ahh, I'm done for, my crappy spelling and grammar has been exposed
(quick, look, there may be more errors in this post).

Ok, I’ll take that, I’ll hang my head in shame for being bad at
English.

Whereas you seem to revel in being a lying ignorant buffoon.

I’ll bet this hardfaced London geezer image you portray on the web is
just a cover for the fact you’re a ponce living at home with his mum.

Do you have a camera? If so, then if you truly believe most cyclists
jump red lights and that you see it ALL the time then document it and
expose these evil doers. Do something about it or shut the **** up.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In ,
> Steve Firth > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> I drive though Chiswick, S/Bush and Camden most days. I've never seen
>> a cyclist stop for the lights. Indeed most don't even seem to notice
>> that they are there.
>
> What is this, a People Who Need New Glasses Convention?

How could a need for spectacles on the part of a driver (whether the need be
addressed or unaddressed) cause cyclists to disregard red traffic lights?

[JNugent[_5_]]

OG wrote:
> "Jon North" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Isn't undertaking illegal? (Even if you call it "filtering on the left"?
>
> No it's not illegal
>
> that's the point.

Undertaking isn't illegal.

It's just stupid.

[Graz]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:34:53 -0800 (PST), Marz
> wrote:

>On Feb 12, 9:07=A0am, (Graz) wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:56:03 -0800 (PST), Marz
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Feb 11, 10:13=3DA0pm, (Graz) wrote:
>>
>> >> >Yes, but I am trying to work out whether your opinions about cyclists
>> >> >in London are from reading the Daily Wail and therefore making you an
>> >> >ignorant buffoon or that you actualy live in London and you're a
>> >> >ignorant liar.
>>
>> >> The Daily Wail, as you call it, is far too liberal and wussy for me.
>> >> The very fact that you call it such makes you the ignorant buffoon. =
>=3DA0
>> >> I bet you read the Socialist Worker.
>>
>> >So no then to reading the Daily Wail. You're an ignorant liar from
>> >London who we know (sic) see is also a right wing fascist.
>>
>> Ah, we now see you're illiterate as well as being a cretinous cyclist.
>>
>> >The more you type
>> >the more amazed I am with your ability to drag your knuckles off the
>> >floor to reach the keyboard.
>>
>> And this from someone who writes "know" for "now". =A0LOL
>>
>> >Of course you can't see the other
>> >cyclists, that heavy set scowling forehead of yours severely limits
>> >your field of vision.
>>
>> You only have one eyebrow, don't you? =A0A unibrow, I believe it's
>> called.
>
>Ahh, I'm done for, my crappy spelling and grammar has been exposed
>(quick, look, there may be more errors in this post).
>
>Ok, I=92ll take that, I=92ll hang my head in shame for being bad at
>English.

Yes, as a cretin you should.

>Whereas you seem to revel in being a lying ignorant buffoon.

It only seems that way to you because you're an ignorant ****.

>I=92ll bet this hardfaced London geezer image you portray on the web is
>just a cover for the fact you=92re a ponce living at home with his mum.

You're a faggot, aren't you, lycraboi?

>Do you have a camera? If so, then if you truly believe most cyclists
>jump red lights and that you see it ALL the time then document it and
>expose these evil doers.

Ah, you mean give the police their registration numbers for
prosecution?

>Do something about it or shut the **** up.

The last **** that did it in front of me while I was crossing the road
got his back wheel kicked. Sadly, he didn't lose his balance.

[Jon North]

OG wrote:
> "Jon North" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Isn't undertaking illegal? (Even if you call it "filtering on the left"?
>
> No it's not illegal
>
> that's the point.

It is on motorways & dual carriageways though?

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:49:54 +0000
Jon North > wrote:

> OG wrote:
> > "Jon North" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Isn't undertaking illegal? (Even if you call it "filtering on the
> >> left"?
> >
> > No it's not illegal
> >
> > that's the point.
>
> It is on motorways & dual carriageways though?

Not if "traffic is moving slowly in queues", precisely the sort of
conditions in which you'd filter. But "do not change lanes to the left
in order to overtake".

[JNugent[_5_]]

Jon North wrote:
> OG wrote:
>> "Jon North" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Isn't undertaking illegal? (Even if you call it "filtering on the left"?
>> No it's not illegal
>>
>> that's the point.
>
> It is on motorways & dual carriageways though?

Apopoarently not. This question has been researched here (and on other NGs)
over the last few years.

It seems that it used to be specifically illegal but this was changed when
new replacement RT Acts were brought in. If covered at all (it mat well jot
be), it would have to be under the "DWDCAA" or "DWDCFORs" offences.

It is still - believe it or not - a specific offence in Northern Ireland.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:49:54 +0000
> Jon North > wrote:
>
>> OG wrote:
>>> "Jon North" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Isn't undertaking illegal? (Even if you call it "filtering on the
>>>> left"?
>>> No it's not illegal
>>>
>>> that's the point.
>> It is on motorways & dual carriageways though?
>
> Not if "traffic is moving slowly in queues", precisely the sort of
> conditions in which you'd filter. But "do not change lanes to the left
> in order to overtake".

If it were a straight offence (it isn't), the wording would read "You must
not...".