Doug wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:54 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a
motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue
on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on
the M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound
carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a
lorry and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip
road at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles
were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious
accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were
called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one
driver badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous
than cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable
precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in
which case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists
in the queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my
limited knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly
obeyed there can be no crashes?

Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer
insists I do every year.

And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on
collision, the greater the stopping distance and the longer
reaction time of the drivers..

But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you
admire this cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record
as saying you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on
motorways.

No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory
public roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track
and pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists
and pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination.
Is it anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.

Godwin's law.

Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of
cyclists and pedestrians.

Motorways are hardly a safe places for motorists, due to the
dangerously high speeds there and multiple crashes. They are only
rated as safer because they don't kill pedestrians and cyclists who
are not there anyway.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding
safe use of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly
culled.

A typical motorist's view, i.e. "human life is worthless and the only
law is the law of the jungle".

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

You are wrong, motorways are a bit like air travel, actually very safe per
mile, but when there is a crash it can be very bad indeed. adding any extra
problems like cyclists and pedestrians would ruin that.