On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:26:15 PM UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote:
On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote:

You miss the point.
The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would have been no problem.



That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going
that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you were the
one at risk, not him.

Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway.


You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the
car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining
that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two abreast?

If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could
make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and
waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in
the average motorist's common sense than I would have done.

The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had no choice.


Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird
compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek
urgent medical help.

I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary
affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet.

Cyclists have a RIGHT to use that road, motorists are only there under licence.
We were not impeding the subsidised road user in any way even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists.