Cyclists really should be tested on their knowledge of the highway code

On Apr 8, 6:21*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:



On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon *wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, *wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in
an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c....

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 -
the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway
late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at
Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were
removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident
brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal
with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than
cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.
Haven't you read it yet?

And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Mrcheerful wrote:
I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway
slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...6081-28474904/

in an update to this story, the cyclist was also going the wrong way !!!
You really would think that would have given him a bit more of a clue.

http://road.cc/content/news/34160-wr...ives-tell-tale

On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:
On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:



On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in
an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 -
the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway
late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at
Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were
removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident
brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal
with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than
cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which
case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the
queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited
knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do
every year.


And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this
cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you
think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways.

On Apr 10, 9:10*am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:



On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony *wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon * *wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, * *wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in
an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 -
the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway
late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at
Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were
removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident
brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal
with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than
cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which
case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the
queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited
knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?

Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do
every year.



And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

*From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision,
the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the
drivers..

But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this
cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you
think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways.

No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public
roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and
pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and
pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.

Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:



On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a
motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the
M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound
carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry
and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road
at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles
were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious
accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were
called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver
badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous
than cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which
case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the
queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited
knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?

Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists
I do every year.



And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision,
the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the
drivers..

But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire
this cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying
you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways.

No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public
roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and
pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and
pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.

Godwin's law.

Mrcheerful wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:



On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a
motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the
M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound
carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry
and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road
at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles
were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious
accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were
called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver
badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous
than cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in
which case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists
in the queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited
knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?

Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists
I do every year.



And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision,
the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the
drivers..

But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire
this cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying
you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways.

No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public
roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and
pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and
pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.

Godwin's law.

Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of cyclists
and pedestrians.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding safe use
of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled.

On 11/04/2011 08:54, Mrcheerful wrote:


Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of cyclists
and pedestrians.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding safe use
of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled.


A busy motorway would be one of the least pleasant places to cycle but
it would be useful to have a separate cycle track running alongside all
major trunk roads especially dual carriageways.

So long as junctions can be deal with so that the cycle track has a fair
amount of priority (with bridges of necessary) this could be good for
cycling.

As for cost, it is not going to be cheap so perhaps a steep increase in
motoring tax could pay for it.

On Apr 11, 8:10*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a
motorway slip in an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the
M62 - the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound
carriageway late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry
and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road
at Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles
were removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious
accident brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were
called to deal with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver
badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous
than cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which
case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the
queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited
knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?

Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists
I do every year.

And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision,
the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the
drivers..

But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire
this cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying
you think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways.

No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public
roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and
pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and
pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.

Godwin's law.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seconded, and he is wrong again, and he knows it.

On Apr 11, 10:18*am, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 08:54, Mrcheerful wrote:



Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of cyclists
and pedestrians.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding safe use
of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled..

A busy motorway would be one of the least pleasant places to cycle but
it would be useful to have a separate cycle track running alongside all
major trunk roads especially dual carriageways.

So long as junctions can be deal with so that the cycle track has a fair
amount of priority (with bridges of necessary) this could be good for
cycling.

As for cost, it is not going to be cheap so perhaps a steep increase in
motoring tax could pay for it.

Or perhaps a cycling tax ;-)

On 11/04/2011 11:36, francis wrote:
On Apr 11, 10:18 am, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 08:54, Mrcheerful wrote:



Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of cyclists
and pedestrians.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding safe use
of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled.

A busy motorway would be one of the least pleasant places to cycle but
it would be useful to have a separate cycle track running alongside all
major trunk roads especially dual carriageways.

So long as junctions can be deal with so that the cycle track has a fair
amount of priority (with bridges of necessary) this could be good for
cycling.

As for cost, it is not going to be cheap so perhaps a steep increase in
motoring tax could pay for it.

Or perhaps a cycling tax ;-)

Could do, but that might deter people from cycling which is to no-ones
benefit (apart from TMH).