Derbyshire Police - Cyclists have a right to claim the lane

On 03/12/2014 18:18, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/12/2014 17:44, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

Do you have anything to back up this claim?

Do you have any experience?

Did you read this somewhere from some authority?

Was this knowledge gained from your cycle training?

Or did you just make it up?

It is quite obvious to any normal person that going around a blind bend
next to another vehicle (whether it is a bicycle, a car, a lorry, a bus,
horse, etc.) IS A VERY BAD IDEA. If you cannot tell why then I suggest
you stop using the roads.



So what you are saying is: that no one should never overtake on a blind
bend. That being the case it seems to me completely reasonable to adopt
a central road position or even ride two abreast. Especially if riding
two abreast will deter overtaking at that point.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:38:30 +0000, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:


http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Safe.../Cyclists.aspx

[quote]

Cyclists have a right to claim the lane

It may come as a surprise to most drivers but cyclists have as much
right as drivers to take up the entire lane. You will often see cyclists
riding side-by-side, and you, as a driver, may think they’re being
selfish by doing so. But the fact is the cyclist is actually reducing
the risk of having an accident; it’s the safest way for them to cycle,
particularly if there’s a blind bend, a narrowing of the road, a high
risk junction, pinch point or traffic lights ahead.

Reducing accidents by forcing people to overtake at the most dangerous
places to overtake.

That was well thought out.

On 03/12/2014 18:31, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 03/12/2014 18:18, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/12/2014 17:44, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

Do you have anything to back up this claim?

Do you have any experience?

Did you read this somewhere from some authority?

Was this knowledge gained from your cycle training?

Or did you just make it up?

It is quite obvious to any normal person that going around a blind bend
next to another vehicle (whether it is a bicycle, a car, a lorry, a bus,
horse, etc.) IS A VERY BAD IDEA. If you cannot tell why then I suggest
you stop using the roads.



So what you are saying is: that no one should never overtake on a blind
bend. That being the case it seems to me completely reasonable to adopt
a central road position or even ride two abreast. Especially if riding
two abreast will deter overtaking at that point.

Thanks for clearing that one up.


' No one should never ' is a double negative. Please rewrite your
missive so that it makes sense.

Certainly people should not overtake on a blind bend. They should also
not be next to another vehicle travelling in the same direction, they
are reducing the available road width and reducing their options in the
event of a vehicle coming the other way. Depending on the bend's
direction it may be best to be close to the middle or close to the kerb
while negotiating a blind bend, whichever will give you the furthest
possible view ahead.

On 03/12/2014 14:53, Tarcap wrote:


"Simon Weaseltemper" wrote in message
...


http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Safe.../Cyclists.aspx

[quote]

Cyclists have a right to claim the lane

It may come as a surprise to most drivers but cyclists have as much
right as drivers to take up the entire lane. You will often see cyclists
riding side-by-side, and you, as a driver, may think they’re being
selfish by doing so. But the fact is the cyclist is actually reducing
the risk of having an accident; it’s the safest way for them to cycle,
particularly if there’s a blind bend, a narrowing of the road, a high
risk junction, pinch point or traffic lights ahead.

Cyclists should never cycle in the gutter as it gives no room for
avoiding obstacles and leaves no room to fall if an accident occurs,
increasing the risk of falling into the road and potentially under the
wheels of a vehicle.

[unquote]

Have the police got it wrong? Or got it right?


You forgot to paste this bit:

Groups of teenagers on bikes are becoming an increasing sight. Many may
flaunt the basic road safety measures simply as a way of looking cool,
nonchalant or carefree in front of their peers. They seldom wear
helmets, and more often than not their bikes will not be equipped with
lights in the dark. They may also ride erratically, either on or off the
pavement. This makes them a serious worry for drivers, as their
behaviour is often unpredictable. Be extra vigilant when driving near
groups of cyclists of this nature.

Teenagers?

I've seen a group of 5 kids all appearing to be under 10, cycle at
oncoming traffic in the offside lane. They had been zig zagging up the
nearside lane but switched to oncoming lane when the oncoming car
appeared from around a bend 100m away. Their nearside lane was
completely empty and had a 20 ft wide parking area between it and the curb.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 18:57:17 GMT
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:38:30 +0000, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:


http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Safe.../Cyclists.aspx

[quote]

Cyclists have a right to claim the lane

It may come as a surprise to most drivers but cyclists have as much
right as drivers to take up the entire lane. You will often see
cyclists riding side-by-side, and you, as a driver, may think
they’re being selfish by doing so. But the fact is the cyclist is
actually reducing the risk of having an accident; it’s the safest
way for them to cycle, particularly if there’s a blind bend, a
narrowing of the road, a high risk junction, pinch point or traffic
lights ahead.

Reducing accidents by forcing people to overtake at the most dangerous
places to overtake.

That was well thought out.

You'd never consider slowing and waiting to overtake, of course.
That says a lot.

On 03/12/2014 16:08, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 03/12/2014 15:54, JNugent wrote:

Oh, I don't expect that a single cyclist has ever taken much heed of the
advice given. It all sounds like a corporate-speak press release, with
the drafter eager to use any idea which seems positive, even if it
doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Safe.../Cyclists.aspx

This is formal advice originating from the Police. You seem to be
discarding that advice because it does not fit in with what you believe.

In what way do you say I am "discarding" advice to cyclists?

And do you suffer from the delusion that I live in Derbyshire?

On 03/12/2014 19:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/12/2014 18:31, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 03/12/2014 18:18, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/12/2014 17:44, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

Do you have anything to back up this claim?

Do you have any experience?

Did you read this somewhere from some authority?

Was this knowledge gained from your cycle training?

Or did you just make it up?

It is quite obvious to any normal person that going around a blind bend
next to another vehicle (whether it is a bicycle, a car, a lorry, a bus,
horse, etc.) IS A VERY BAD IDEA. If you cannot tell why then I suggest
you stop using the roads.



So what you are saying is: that no one should never overtake on a blind
bend. That being the case it seems to me completely reasonable to adopt
a central road position or even ride two abreast. Especially if riding
two abreast will deter overtaking at that point.

Thanks for clearing that one up.


' No one should never ' is a double negative. Please rewrite your
missive so that it makes sense.

Certainly people should not overtake on a blind bend. They should also
not be next to another vehicle travelling in the same direction, they
are reducing the available road width and reducing their options in the
event of a vehicle coming the other way. Depending on the bend's
direction it may be best to be close to the middle or close to the kerb
while negotiating a blind bend, whichever will give you the furthest
possible view ahead.

No one should ever. HTH.

Do not overtake on a blind bend.

Riding two abreast is OK and it will deter others overtaking.

On 03/12/2014 20:01, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 03/12/2014 19:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/12/2014 18:31, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 03/12/2014 18:18, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/12/2014 17:44, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

Do you have anything to back up this claim?

Do you have any experience?

Did you read this somewhere from some authority?

Was this knowledge gained from your cycle training?

Or did you just make it up?

It is quite obvious to any normal person that going around a blind bend
next to another vehicle (whether it is a bicycle, a car, a lorry, a
bus,
horse, etc.) IS A VERY BAD IDEA. If you cannot tell why then I suggest
you stop using the roads.



So what you are saying is: that no one should never overtake on a blind
bend. That being the case it seems to me completely reasonable to adopt
a central road position or even ride two abreast. Especially if riding
two abreast will deter overtaking at that point.

Thanks for clearing that one up.


' No one should never ' is a double negative. Please rewrite your
missive so that it makes sense.

Certainly people should not overtake on a blind bend. They should also
not be next to another vehicle travelling in the same direction, they
are reducing the available road width and reducing their options in the
event of a vehicle coming the other way. Depending on the bend's
direction it may be best to be close to the middle or close to the kerb
while negotiating a blind bend, whichever will give you the furthest
possible view ahead.

No one should ever. HTH.

Do not overtake on a blind bend.

Riding two abreast is OK and it will deter others overtaking.



Riding two abreast may be legal in some circumstances, but is dangerous
around blind bends. Riding in any way in order to deliberately obstruct
others is not legal.

On 03/12/2014 20:01, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 03/12/2014 19:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/12/2014 18:31, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 03/12/2014 18:18, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/12/2014 17:44, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

Do you have anything to back up this claim?

Do you have any experience?

Did you read this somewhere from some authority?

Was this knowledge gained from your cycle training?

Or did you just make it up?

It is quite obvious to any normal person that going around a blind bend
next to another vehicle (whether it is a bicycle, a car, a lorry, a
bus,
horse, etc.) IS A VERY BAD IDEA. If you cannot tell why then I suggest
you stop using the roads.

So what you are saying is: that no one should never overtake on a blind
bend. That being the case it seems to me completely reasonable to adopt
a central road position or even ride two abreast. Especially if riding
two abreast will deter overtaking at that point.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

' No one should never ' is a double negative. Please rewrite your
missive so that it makes sense.

Certainly people should not overtake on a blind bend. They should also
not be next to another vehicle travelling in the same direction, they
are reducing the available road width and reducing their options in the
event of a vehicle coming the other way. Depending on the bend's
direction it may be best to be close to the middle or close to the kerb
while negotiating a blind bend, whichever will give you the furthest
possible view ahead.

No one should ever. HTH.

Do not overtake on a blind bend.

It's more than that.

The full rule is "Do not travel at such a speed that you cannot stop
within the distance you can see to be clear". It applies to all bends,
corners, etc.

Riding two abreast is OK and it will deter others overtaking.

If they've seen you, around this blind bend.

If they haven't, riding two abreast may be one of exercised "rights"
which actually wasn't advisable.

"Simon Weaseltemper" wrote in message
...

On 03/12/2014 18:13, Tarcap wrote:


"Simon Weaseltemper" wrote in message
...

On 03/12/2014 17:04, Tarcap wrote:


"Simon Weaseltemper" wrote in message
...

On 03/12/2014 14:53, Tarcap wrote:

You forgot to paste this bit:

Groups of teenagers on bikes are becoming an increasing sight. Many may
flaunt the basic road safety measures simply as a way of looking cool,
nonchalant or carefree in front of their peers. They seldom wear
helmets, and more often than not their bikes will not be equipped with
lights in the dark. They may also ride erratically, either on or off the
pavement. This makes them a serious worry for drivers, as their
behaviour is often unpredictable. Be extra vigilant when driving near
groups of cyclists of this nature.

If the subject of discussion makes you feel uncomfortable, why not just
change the subject? ;-)


How on earth is it changing the subject?
It was taken from the very same article you were quoting from.
If you think that you can cherry-pick anything you like to hear, but
ignore anything you don't, you are very, very mistaken.

The subject was: Cyclists have a right to claim the lane

You changed it to the part headed: Children on bikes

You therefore evaded the issue by changing the subject. That's OK, if
you want to discuss 'children on bikes' or if you have a point to make
about 'children on bikes'. I am not sure what (if any) point you had but
what I do know is that you changed the subject.

You were using a particular piece of information produced by Derbyshire
Police, so was I.
You can't ring fence one part in a futile attempt to show cyclists in a
good light, where in the very same article it also shows them in an
extremely bad light.
Soon you'll be saying that unless we only look at information where it
is positive for cyclists, we are changing the subject when we point out
information to the contrary.
If I had randomly introduced something from "Top Gear", perhaps, you
would possibly have a point.

Nice bit of wriggling there, by the way.

I was merely pointing out the advice from the police, but it upset you,
because you didn't like it.


But that was exactly what I was doing, but you only accepted the parts of
that advice that *you* liked.

The link that *you* posted.

If you don't like the advice that you post the links to, then don't post
them.

Keep wriggling in that time honoured fashion of psycholists..