Idiots on the A1

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

FYI someone claiming to be a driving instructor once came to
uk.rec.cycling and stated that there was a sign which indicates that
cyclists must use a cycle route. When this assertion was challenged
he was not able to produce chapter and verse, because he was
completely and utterly wrong.

Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
and it shows.

The man claiming to be a driving instructor posted something similar
and ended up looking foolish when he could not back up his
assertion.

Had an amusing incident with a driving instructor a couple of weeks ago who
claimed the speed limit applied to cycles, and pointed out the fact that he
was an instructor as a reason why he knew this. Unfortunately he wasn't
willing to continue the conversation, so I was unable to check if he knew
the tachograph laws for lorry drivers, etc since he claimed his teaching one
class of vehicle meant he knew the rules for all of them.

cheers,
clive

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:12:16 +0100 someone who may be "Robert
Peffers." wrote this:-


Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
and it shows.

The man claiming to be a driving instructor posted something similar
and ended up looking foolish when he could not back up his
assertion.



It is of course true that all cyclists have passed all the tests
required by law to cycle on the roads ;-)

Tony

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peffers." wrote in message
...

Because, you bloody idiot, the complaint is about the ones illegally
using the roads.

Which ones would that be?

clive

And timetrials do not normally require police permission - an organiser can
simply notify the police an event is due to take place. Indeed the CTT
helpfully produce a form specifically for organisers to use. It is the Road
Traffic Act that demands Police have at least 28 days clear notice of a time
trial; any less and then they can refuse permission to run the event or
impose special conditions, but as time trial organisers tend to be good at
organising events, it's usually a case of *notification* to the police
rather than *seeking permission* :-)

In article , Robert Peffers.
says...

Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.

One idiot to another, eh?

Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
and it shows.

Has it ever occurred to you that many cyclists are actually licensed to
drive motor vehicles?

On Aug 16, 4:36 pm, Rob Morley wrote:
I don't think the cyclists would be at all happy with cars
filling the 1 minute gap between each cyclist.

When I was time trialling I always used to wish that motor vehicles
would give me less space, for a better tow. :-)

.... and presumably picked up speed a bit on the down slopes, slowed
down for you when it got steeper, overtook the bike in front when you
wanted to... :-)
(aren't there rules about that, or is just about following other
competitors too closely?)

2 miles at 70mph takes 103 seconds
2 miles at 20mph takes 360 seconds
so the most that anyone will be delayed is about 4 minutes. That's not
4 minutes sat still in a traffic jam, just 4 minutes driving slowly.

Where does 2 miles come from?

"a couple of miles short of the first A1M after Scotch corner" - I
assumed he was turning off there, but maybe not.

AIUI this was the event

http://www.cyclingtimetrials.org.uk/...Page=1&ID=1037

which is on the A1 for 20 miles north then another 20 miles back
south.

As the OP only reports seeing a single cyclist I assume that was the
lantern rouge.

Rob

"wafflycat" wrote in message
...

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peffers." wrote in message
...

Because, you bloody idiot, the complaint is about the ones illegally
using the roads.

Which ones would that be?

clive

And timetrials do not normally require police permission - an organiser
can simply notify the police an event is due to take place. Indeed the CTT

I think that's a typo for CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club

Mary
once a Time Trialist who remembers marshalling and racing on the A1 in the
glory days before it was crowded with traffic. Why, there isn't even a
Dishforth roundabout to sit on in the semi-dark under a cape any more :-(

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"wafflycat" wrote in message
...



And timetrials do not normally require police permission - an organiser
can simply notify the police an event is due to take place. Indeed the
CTT

I think that's a typo for CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club

Mary
once a Time Trialist who remembers marshalling and racing on the A1 in the
glory days before it was crowded with traffic. Why, there isn't even a
Dishforth roundabout to sit on in the semi-dark under a cape any more :-(


No, it's the CTT: Cycling Time Trials, the governing body for time trials in
England & Wales.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the CTC: Cyclists' Touring Club

"Robert Peffers." wrote in
:

Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.
Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving
tests - and it shows.

The law says no such thing (writing as a cyclist who's passed a driving
test or two!) The Highway Code (rule 51) does say that cyclist should ride
in single file on narrow roads - but that's just advisory, written without
knowledge of the situation at the time, and does not have the weight of
law. That said, you should note that the Highway Code (rule 139) says that
you should give a cyclist as much room as you would a car when overtaking,
and rule 142 says should not overtake near the brow of a hill. Regular
cyclists know from experience that many motorists contravene those, and
other, rules and take appropriate actions to defend against such motorists.

Now Cyclecraft advocates positioning yourself to deter movements from
others which could increase risk to yourself. In this case AIUI that would
be taking the primary riding position to prevent the following motorist
from dangerously overtaking - which is effectively what the "outer" cyclist
was doing.

--
Geoff

"Geoff Lane" wrote in message
...


Now Cyclecraft advocates positioning yourself to deter movements from
others which could increase risk to yourself. In this case AIUI that would
be taking the primary riding position to prevent the following motorist
from dangerously overtaking - which is effectively what the "outer"
cyclist
was doing.

--
Geoff

And let's not forget that it's Cyclecraft advice that has been adopted in
the new National Cycle Training Standards...

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/

--
In Memoriam

http://www.drypool.net/cgi-bin/system.pl?id=nfflist
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:12:16 +0100 someone who may be "Robert
Peffers." wrote this:-

Reading between your lines, and particularly your second paragraph, I
suspect that if you could have "squeezed past" you would have - even
though
that would have been unsafe. So, IMO the cyclists' are completely
vindicated.

Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.

Which law is that then?.........

One might argue that the statutes of courtesy and decency should come into
play in such a situation - but, since cyclists are (generally) entirely
ignorant of such social niceties, it would be wiser to suggest to them that
the ancient law of self-preservation should be rigorously applied.

You will doubtless have heard of Mike O'Day -

"Here is the grave of Mike O'Day
Who died defending his right of way.
His right was clear, his will was strong -
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"

To which couplet might be added another of my own composition:

"When cycling down a narrow road
Obstructing my car and heavy load,
Then wisdom should come into play
And make you get out of my way -
For if, alas, my vehicle tyre
Should knock your cycle in the mire
Before it passed over your head,
I would be fined -
But you'd be dead."