A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rule 168 anyone?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 16th 14, 10:25 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default Rule 168 anyone?

http://www.s****horpetelegraph.co.uk...ail/story.html
Ads
  #2  
Old May 16th 14, 10:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Judith[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,000
Default Rule 168 anyone?

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:25:09 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.s****horpetelegraph.co.uk...ail/story.html



Typical cyclist : no thought at all for other road users.

It must have done wonders for the "many motorists *hate* cyclists" school of
thought.


  #3  
Old May 17th 14, 10:31 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Cassandra[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Rule 168 anyone?

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:25:09 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.s****horpetelegraph.co.uk...ail/story.html


Our main road has a white line 3 feet from the kerb to enable cyclists
and motorists to proceed safely at their own speed without coming into
contact with on another.

Of course there is a millitant **** on a bicycle who always uses the
main part of the road to assert his rights as a road user. He even has
a go-pro to record all the near misses he causes.


  #4  
Old May 18th 14, 04:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
soup[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 210
Default Rule 168 anyone?

On 16/05/2014 10:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.s****horpetelegraph.co.uk...ail/story.html

Don't you mean 169
  #5  
Old May 18th 14, 05:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default Rule 168 anyone?

On 18/05/2014 16:21, soup wrote:
On 16/05/2014 10:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.s****horpetelegraph.co.uk...ail/story.html


Don't you mean 169


168 and 169 cover this.
  #6  
Old May 19th 14, 08:18 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Iain[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default Rule 168 anyone?

soup wrote:
On 16/05/2014 10:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.s****horpetelegraph.co.uk...ail/story.html

Don't you mean 169


169 seems to be the 'common sense' rule he
"Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a
large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if
necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."
I don't see why the princple should not apply to any road user, even horse
riders (who often seem to do it).

--
Iain


  #7  
Old May 19th 14, 08:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default Rule 168 anyone?

On Mon, 19 May 2014 08:18:38 +0100, "Iain" wrote:

soup wrote:
On 16/05/2014 10:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.s****horpetelegraph.co.uk...ail/story.html

Don't you mean 169


169 seems to be the 'common sense' rule he
"Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a
large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if
necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."
I don't see why the princple should not apply to any road user, even horse
riders (who often seem to do it).


Is it legal to pull in into a coned off area, other than in an
emergency?
  #8  
Old May 19th 14, 09:28 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Rule 168 anyone?

On Monday, 19 May 2014 08:59:48 UTC+1, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Is it legal to pull in into a coned off area, other than in an
emergency?



Good point.
Roadworks require a Traffic Regulation Order from the council.
This usually makes it illegal to operate a vehicle within the designated area.
Unfortunately under Crank v Brooks 1980 once you dismount from your bicycle
you are a pedestrian.

  #9  
Old May 19th 14, 10:27 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tarcap
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,950
Default Rule 168 anyone?



"Simon Jester" wrote in message
...

On Monday, 19 May 2014 08:59:48 UTC+1, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Is it legal to pull in into a coned off area, other than in an
emergency?



Good point.

Since when did cyclists start to worry about keeping to the law?

  #10  
Old May 19th 14, 10:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default Rule 168 anyone?

On 19/05/2014 10:27, Tarcap wrote:


"Simon Jester" wrote in message
...

On Monday, 19 May 2014 08:59:48 UTC+1, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Is it legal to pull in into a coned off area, other than in an
emergency?



Good point.

Since when did cyclists start to worry about keeping to the law?


A bicycle could just move to the side, there would be no need to enter
the coned off area.

I frequently see cyclists going the wrong side of traffic islands,
ignoring traffic signs, cycling where it is illegal to do so, and even
riding the wrong way around roundabouts, so the idea that one would be
worried about entering a coned off road works area is really laughable.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First rule. Warren Penn Racing 1 January 14th 13 11:52 PM
UCI changes a rule and disqualifies everybody since the rule's inception Free Willy Racing 3 November 5th 12 08:23 PM
is there a rule ... bar Racing 49 June 22nd 09 09:43 AM
is there a rule ... Carl Sundquist[_3_] Racing 0 June 20th 09 09:10 PM
6.8 kg rule Nick Payne Techniques 1 August 5th 03 07:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.