OK so let's have some examples

Where a cyclist should break the law/HC guidance because it's safer than not
doing so.

I'm talking everyday situations, not cyclists being chased by axe-murderers
or trying to outrun earthquakes etc. It's not a trick question, I'm sure
there will be examples but I'm not convinced that *safety* is the
justification rather than "couldn't be bothered" or "it was quicker that
way".

On 07/09/2013 14:44, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
Where a cyclist should break the law/HC guidance because it's safer than
not doing so.

I'm talking everyday situations, not cyclists being chased by
axe-murderers or trying to outrun earthquakes etc. It's not a trick
question, I'm sure there will be examples but I'm not convinced that
*safety* is the justification rather than "couldn't be bothered" or "it
was quicker that way".

they should never stop at any traffic signal or crossing because they
will be rammed. always use a one way street the wrong way so you can
see what is coming at you and avoid it ramming you. ride on the
pavement to avoid being : you can guess. never use lights or bright
clothing because it makes you a target for ramming.

never use a cycle lane because they are full of cars and broken glass.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 14:44:28 +0100
"Mentalguy2k8" wrote:

Where a cyclist should break the law/HC guidance because it's safer
than not doing so.

Two very different things there, legal requirement that is basically
inarguable, and HC recommendation that is sometimes painfully
inappropriate e.g. the going around the outside of a roundabout thing.
Another example: riding at night without lights and reflectors is really
silly and illegal, riding without a helmet and hivis is perfectly
reasonable.

I'm talking everyday situations, not cyclists being chased by
axe-murderers or trying to outrun earthquakes etc. It's not a trick
question, I'm sure there will be examples but I'm not convinced that
*safety* is the justification rather than "couldn't be bothered" or
"it was quicker that way".

Illegal things crap cyclists do that **** me off - inconsiderate or
careless: pavement cycling, red light running (including pedestrian
crossings), ignoring one-way or no-entry, pulling out without warning
or observation (they're good at doing this to other cyclists), any
situation in which they expect someone else to stop or get out of their
way when they don't actually have priority.
Having said that, most of those apply to crap drivers too, and some
to pedestrians. Also if done carefully and considerately they shouldn't
cause anyone else any inconvenience or danger.

On Saturday, 7 September 2013 14:44:28 UTC+1, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
Where a cyclist should break the law/HC guidance because it's safer than not

doing so.



I'm talking everyday situations, not cyclists being chased by axe-murderers

or trying to outrun earthquakes etc. It's not a trick question, I'm sure

there will be examples but I'm not convinced that *safety* is the

justification rather than "couldn't be bothered" or "it was quicker that

way".

just answered this. Crossing the chevrons/hatchings bound by a solid line on high-speed roads to see and escape from close passing motor-vehicles on both sides.

On 07/09/2013 17:13, thirty-six wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 14:44:28 UTC+1, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
Where a cyclist should break the law/HC guidance because it's safer than not

doing so.



I'm talking everyday situations, not cyclists being chased by axe-murderers

or trying to outrun earthquakes etc. It's not a trick question, I'm sure

there will be examples but I'm not convinced that *safety* is the

justification rather than "couldn't be bothered" or "it was quicker that

way".

just answered this. Crossing the chevrons/hatchings bound by a solid line on high-speed roads to see and escape from close passing motor-vehicles on both sides.


It is a total waste of time trying to reason with 'Mental by name,
Mental by nature'.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
news
just answered this. Crossing the chevrons/hatchings bound by a solid
line on high-speed roads to see and escape from close passing
motor-vehicles on both sides.


It is a total waste of time trying to reason with 'Mental by name, Mental
by nature'.

Is there any point in trying to take this group back? How many people on
here would like to do so?

On Saturday, 7 September 2013 14:44:28 UTC+1, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
Where a cyclist should break the law/HC guidance because it's safer than not

doing so.



I'm talking everyday situations, not cyclists being chased by axe-murderers

or trying to outrun earthquakes etc. It's not a trick question, I'm sure

there will be examples but I'm not convinced that *safety* is the

justification rather than "couldn't be bothered" or "it was quicker that

way".

Ignoring the left turn only sign when one joins a dual carriageway yet has safe access to turn without inconvenience to others as there is a low kerb. Much better than going maybe a mile out of one's way and negotiating a junction of major roads which results in possible conflict, so easily and lawfully avoided.

Ignoring the no entry signs which are in reality only there to dissuade the through motor traffic through a housing estate or past a school. Even in a car I will ignore such signs for convenient access purposes. It is done lawfully and responsibly, with a keen eye out for plod, typically quietly in 2nd gear at around 12 - 16mph. "It's difficult to turn around, what with my back the way it is".

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 14:44:28 UTC+1, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
Where a cyclist should break the law/HC guidance because it's safer than
not

doing so.



I'm talking everyday situations, not cyclists being chased by
axe-murderers

or trying to outrun earthquakes etc. It's not a trick question, I'm sure

there will be examples but I'm not convinced that *safety* is the

justification rather than "couldn't be bothered" or "it was quicker that

way".

Ignoring the left turn only sign when one joins a dual carriageway yet has
safe access to turn without inconvenience to others as there is a low kerb.
Much better than going maybe a mile out of one's way and negotiating a
junction of major roads which results in possible conflict, so easily and
lawfully avoided.

Ignoring the no entry signs which are in reality only there to dissuade the
through motor traffic through a housing estate or past a school. Even in a
car I will ignore such signs for convenient access purposes. It is done
lawfully and responsibly, with a keen eye out for plod, typically quietly
in 2nd gear at around 12 - 16mph. "It's difficult to turn around, what
with my back the way it is".

Hmm, I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "lawfully" and try
again.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
news
On 07/09/2013 17:13, thirty-six wrote:
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 14:44:28 UTC+1, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
Where a cyclist should break the law/HC guidance because it's safer than
not

doing so.



I'm talking everyday situations, not cyclists being chased by
axe-murderers

or trying to outrun earthquakes etc. It's not a trick question, I'm sure

there will be examples but I'm not convinced that *safety* is the

justification rather than "couldn't be bothered" or "it was quicker that

way".

just answered this. Crossing the chevrons/hatchings bound by a solid line
on high-speed roads to see and escape from close passing motor-vehicles on
both sides.


It is a total waste of time trying to reason with 'Mental by name,
Mental by nature'.

You forgot to add : Nah , nah nah nah nah!

"Partac" wrote in message
...

just answered this. Crossing the chevrons/hatchings bound by a solid
line on high-speed roads to see and escape from close passing
motor-vehicles on both sides.


It is a total waste of time trying to reason with 'Mental by name,
Mental by nature'.

You forgot to add : Nah , nah nah nah nah!

I think he'll only be happy when "discussion" around here consists of him
making an abusive anti-motorist post and everyone else replies with "+1".
UKRCM in all but name.

This is what you get when you try to encourage a discussion about cycling,
or "taking the group back" as it's otherwise known. Why bother? If the
biggest cry-baby in the group makes completely hypocritical pointless and
pathetic posts like the one above, then I don't see why anyone else should
bother. He's already been told, even by his own "team" that he's part of the
problem.