There are some odd drivers about!

On 08/04/2020 02:04, JNugent wrote:

It means that he should move over *when* there is such an opportunity.
As TMS320 had already blurted out (he must be regretting it now), the
cyclist he described *did* have more than one such opportunity - and
failed to take any of them.

Yes, I regret giving you a molehill to turn into a mountain.

BTW, para 169 does not contain the words 'should', or 'opportunity'.

On 08/04/2020 16:13, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 09:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 02:03, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2020 15:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/04/2020 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 06/04/2020 18:55, Mike Collins wrote:

You said that a cyclist *had* more than one safe place to pull in and
let you past, but didn't do so and continued to obstruct you.

I never used the words 'obstruct' or 'safe'. All I did was to express
an opinion that the road was wide enough in places.

That's fine. In context, I am prepared to trust your opinion on that.
You would not hold that opinion unwarrantedly.

Good. But I am not prepared to trust your opinion that getting held up
by cyclists is commonplace.

Had I been a stronger cyclist or on a motorbike it would have easy to
have got past without any adjustment on his part. The car was my
choice of vehicle so I had to take into account the limitations that
come with that choice; a choice that is nobody else's responsibility.

Remember the Highway Code.

I haven't forgotten. But I missed the bit that says that one person's
choice is another person's responsibility. Which paragraph is this?

"Slow moving" has to be understood as a relative term. It means (in
this context) moving more slowly than the traffic would move if the
obstruction were not present.

Traffic is always headed by the slowest vehicle.

7mph? 5mph?

The agility of ukrc goalposts is quite remarkable.

What speed do you suggest should be tolerated by following traffic when
there *is* space to overtake (as you testified)?

Whatever the person behind is willing to accept.

On 08/04/2020 17:36, Mike Collins wrote:

Just cite the relevant text and save us all a lot of time.

He said something about cyclists (note the plural) holding him up. So to
counterpoint, I recounted just one occasion of it happening (something
memorable is bound to be infrequent). So he's been wondering why I
didn't spray my windscreen with spittle.

On 08/04/2020 17:36, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 17:29:23 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 16:54, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 16:15:31 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 14:21, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 02:04:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2020 16:14, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 April 2020 12:30:45 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 06/04/2020 18:55, Mike Collins wrote:

On Monday, 6 April 2020 02:40:09 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Slow moving vehicles obstruct the highway. That is why there is a
Highway Code rule to the effect that large or slow vehicles (not large
*and* slow, either one is sufficient) should be moved to the nearside,
stopping if necessary, to allow obstructed traffic to pass.

Define slow moving and cite the HC.

Don't be stupid. You know full well that the Highway Code rule I cited
does exist. If you didn't know (or claim that you didn't know), you
ought to be urgently revisiting the Code.

For the sake of clarity, though, you can pick the bones out of these two
consecutive Rules:

QUOTE:
Rule 168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a
steady course and speed, *slowing down* if necessary to let the vehicle
pass. *Never* obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving
unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to
maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in
front of you.

Rule 169
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.
ENDQUOTE

"Slow moving" has to be understood as a relative term. It means (in this
context) moving more slowly than the traffic would move if the
obstruction were not present.


Exactly, it does not a cyclist has to immediately move over just because a couple of cars have to wait 30 seconds for a safe opportunity to overtake.

It means that he should move over *when* there is such an opportunity.
As TMS320 had already blurted out (he must be regretting it now), the
cyclist he described *did* have more than one such opportunity - and
failed to take any of them.


It does not mean anything of the sort. If I am cycling along and a car comes up behind me I do not have to pull into the next farm gateway just to prevent the car behind having to wait a few seconds for the oncoming car to pass.

No-one has ever said that you do, so that strawman does you no good
whatsoever.

Your description, though, was of a situation where that Highway Code
Rule applied in spadefuls. The cyclist was slow and he had more than one
opportunity to let you pass him where the roadway was sufficiently wide.
But he acted like... well... like a typical cyclist, as some would say.

What description?

Look back along the thread.

It's all there.


Just cite the relevant text and save us all a lot of time.

Look back along the thread. It's all there.

There will be no point in your asking me to access the Google archive.
Do it yourself.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 08/04/2020 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 02:04, JNugent wrote:

It means that he should move over *when* there is such an opportunity.
As TMS320 had already blurted out (he must be regretting it now), the
cyclist he described *did* have more than one such opportunity - and
failed to take any of them.

Yes, I regret giving you a molehill to turn into a mountain.

BTW, para 169 does not contain the words 'should', or 'opportunity'.

Can discussion of Highway Code Rules only be constructed of the words
used by the drafter of the rule and used in it?

You could patent somethuing like that and try to sell it at Christmas.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 20:27:47 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 17:36, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 17:29:23 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 16:54, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 16:15:31 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 14:21, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 02:04:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2020 16:14, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 April 2020 12:30:45 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 06/04/2020 18:55, Mike Collins wrote:

On Monday, 6 April 2020 02:40:09 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Slow moving vehicles obstruct the highway. That is why there is a
Highway Code rule to the effect that large or slow vehicles (not large
*and* slow, either one is sufficient) should be moved to the nearside,
stopping if necessary, to allow obstructed traffic to pass.

Define slow moving and cite the HC.

Don't be stupid. You know full well that the Highway Code rule I cited
does exist. If you didn't know (or claim that you didn't know), you
ought to be urgently revisiting the Code.

For the sake of clarity, though, you can pick the bones out of these two
consecutive Rules:

QUOTE:
Rule 168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a
steady course and speed, *slowing down* if necessary to let the vehicle
pass. *Never* obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving
unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to
maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in
front of you.

Rule 169
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.
ENDQUOTE

"Slow moving" has to be understood as a relative term. It means (in this
context) moving more slowly than the traffic would move if the
obstruction were not present.


Exactly, it does not a cyclist has to immediately move over just because a couple of cars have to wait 30 seconds for a safe opportunity to overtake.

It means that he should move over *when* there is such an opportunity.
As TMS320 had already blurted out (he must be regretting it now), the
cyclist he described *did* have more than one such opportunity - and
failed to take any of them.


It does not mean anything of the sort. If I am cycling along and a car comes up behind me I do not have to pull into the next farm gateway just to prevent the car behind having to wait a few seconds for the oncoming car to pass.

No-one has ever said that you do, so that strawman does you no good
whatsoever.

Your description, though, was of a situation where that Highway Code
Rule applied in spadefuls. The cyclist was slow and he had more than one
opportunity to let you pass him where the roadway was sufficiently wide.
But he acted like... well... like a typical cyclist, as some would say.

What description?

Look back along the thread.

It's all there.


Just cite the relevant text and save us all a lot of time.

Look back along the thread. It's all there.

Where?


There will be no point in your asking me to access the Google archive.
Do it yourself.


Just this thread will do.

On 08/04/2020 20:28, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 02:04, JNugent wrote:

It means that he should move over *when* there is such an
opportunity. As TMS320 had already blurted out (he must be regretting
it now), the cyclist he described *did* have more than one such
opportunity - and failed to take any of them.

Yes, I regret giving you a molehill to turn into a mountain.

BTW, para 169 does not contain the words 'should', or 'opportunity'.

Can discussion of Highway Code Rules only be constructed of the words
used by the drafter of the rule and used in it?

When it conerns 'Rules', no. Particularly as you love to change the
meaning of everything.

You could patent somethuing like that and try to sell it at Christmas.

Just trying to keep you on the straight and narrow.

On 08/04/2020 19:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 16:13, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 09:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 02:03, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2020 15:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/04/2020 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 06/04/2020 18:55, Mike Collins wrote:

You said that a cyclist *had* more than one safe place to pull in
and let you past, but didn't do so and continued to obstruct you.

I never used the words 'obstruct' or 'safe'. All I did was to express
an opinion that the road was wide enough in places.

That's fine. In context, I am prepared to trust your opinion on that.
You would not hold that opinion unwarrantedly.

Good. But I am not prepared to trust your opinion that getting held up
by cyclists is commonplace.

I have never stated that.

What I would venture is that it is common for cyclists to hold up other
traffic, often deliberately and maliciously. But the numbers dictate
that most traffic (which is, after all, on motorways and fast trunk
roads) will not be held up by cyclists.

Had I been a stronger cyclist or on a motorbike it would have easy to
have got past without any adjustment on his part. The car was my
choice of vehicle so I had to take into account the limitations that
come with that choice; a choice that is nobody else's responsibility.

Remember the Highway Code.

I haven't forgotten. But I missed the bit that says that one person's
choice is another person's responsibility. Which paragraph is this?

Heeding advice to what one should do in prescribed circumstances is the
responsibilty of those to whom the advice is given.

"Slow moving" has to be understood as a relative term. It means
(in this context) moving more slowly than the traffic would move
if the obstruction were not present.

Traffic is always headed by the slowest vehicle.

7mph? 5mph?

The agility of ukrc goalposts is quite remarkable.

What speed do you suggest should be tolerated by following traffic
when there *is* space to overtake (as you testified)?

Whatever the person behind is willing to accept.

Not many people will accept (say) 7mph (or even 15 mph). It is
unreasonable to expect them to do so. But you knew that.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 09/04/2020 00:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 20:28, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 02:04, JNugent wrote:

It means that he should move over *when* there is such an
opportunity. As TMS320 had already blurted out (he must be
regretting it now), the cyclist he described *did* have more than
one such opportunity - and failed to take any of them.

Yes, I regret giving you a molehill to turn into a mountain.

BTW, para 169 does not contain the words 'should', or 'opportunity'.

Can discussion of Highway Code Rules only be constructed of the words
used by the drafter of the rule and used in it?

When it conerns 'Rules', no.

So what's the problem?

[Or did you mean "yes" but wrote "no"?]

Particularly as you love to change the
meaning of everything.

....whatever that means.

You could patent somethuing like that and try to sell it at Christmas.

Just trying to keep you on the straight and narrow.

....whatever that means.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 09/04/2020 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 09/04/2020 00:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 20:28, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2020 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/04/2020 02:04, JNugent wrote:

It means that he should move over *when* there is such an
opportunity. As TMS320 had already blurted out (he must be
regretting it now), the cyclist he described *did* have more than
one such opportunity - and failed to take any of them.

Yes, I regret giving you a molehill to turn into a mountain.

BTW, para 169 does not contain the words 'should', or 'opportunity'.

Can discussion of Highway Code Rules only be constructed of the words
used by the drafter of the rule and used in it?

When it conerns 'Rules', no.

So what's the problem?

[Or did you mean "yes" but wrote "no"?]

I saw a phantom negative in your question. You're right in your assumption.

Particularly as you love to change the meaning of everything.

...whatever that means.

I am sure you know.

You could patent somethuing like that and try to sell it at Christmas.

Just trying to keep you on the straight and narrow.

...whatever that means.