cyclist holding up traffic

In article , lid (Scion)
wrote:

That's not what "reasonable" means

Do enlighten us.

A cyclist using the carriageway at a speed consistent with his vehicle
and ability is not behaving unreasonably.

A car driver dangerously forcing his way through is.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

Paul Cummins put finger to keyboard:

In article , lid (Scion)
wrote:

That's not what "reasonable" means

Do enlighten us.

A cyclist using the carriageway at a speed consistent with his vehicle
and ability is not behaving unreasonably.

He is if he needlessly obstructs other traffic.

By your reckoning, a group of pedestrians wandering along the overtaking
lane of the A1 are behaving reasonably.

A car driver dangerously forcing his way through is.

If he existed, that is.

Nick wrote:
So I resolved to tackle the
problem by making this strongly critical post to usenet.

Isn't there a wind somewhere you could be ****ing into? :O)

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:03 +0100 (BST), (Paul
Cummins) wrote:

In article ,
(Mentalguy2k8) wrote:

Using the road in the manner described? Obstruction.

Not in the slightest.

Why not?

Because the cyclist is there by right, where the motorists are there by
permission.

The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the right to
pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and the
right to make ordinary and ‘reasonable use’ of the highway.

The offence cited is "unreasonable obstruction of the highway" which
cannot be done by a cyclist making reasonable use and reasonable progress
along a road in a lawful manner.


It's Anchor Lee poorly disguised.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:23 +0100 (BST), (Paul
Cummins) wrote:

In article , lid (Scion)
wrote:

That's not what "reasonable" means

Do enlighten us.

A cyclist using the carriageway at a speed consistent with his vehicle
and ability is not behaving unreasonably.

Does the Highway Code encourage "taking the lane" then?

I must admit I can't find it anywhere.

On 31/07/2013 14:03, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(Mentalguy2k8) wrote:

Using the road in the manner described? Obstruction.

Not in the slightest.

Why not?

Because the cyclist is there by right, where the motorists are there by
permission.

The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the right to
pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and the
right to make ordinary and ‘reasonable use’ of the highway.

The offence cited is "unreasonable obstruction of the highway" which
cannot be done by a cyclist making reasonable use and reasonable progress
along a road in a lawful manner.

You're half right.

It isn't an offence to behave lawfully (though the authorities have been
working away for decades to have lawful use of motor vehicles made an
offence).

But you go all wrong by failing to make the connection: "unreasonable
obstruction of the highway" is *not* lawful.

On 31/07/2013 14:32, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , lid (Scion)
wrote:

The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the
right to
pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and
the
right to make ordinary and ‘reasonable use’ of the highway.

By needlessly obstructing faster traffic the cyclist is not making
reasonable use of the road

That's not what "reasonable" means

Please cite the statute or regulation.

Phil W Lee wrote:
"TMS320" considered Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:52:57 +0100
the perfect time to write:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

"TMS320" wrote in message
...
"Mrcheerful" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message
"Mrcheerful" wrote

you should post it to a car or driving group.

Hint - I have removed uk.rec.driving from this reply. Check the
headers in the rest of the thread.

(Though the blurred vision you get from the excitement of reading
reports of supposed "wrong doing" of cyclists can't be helped by
all those bottles you buy.)

I noticed too late that there were multiple groups, it is not
something that I would look at before posting and only spotted it
in the sent items. I cancelled the message within moments, but
apparently it still got through, yet does not show up for me.

Ah well. I hope you're more observant when you're driving. It's the
inability to notice small detail that causes crashes.

What are all these bottles that I buy?

...poor memory too. Y'know, the ones that weigh down your weekly
shopping.


Did I describe my weekly shopping? or just state the weight?

The weight is clue to liquid content. I doubt you buy a bag of
cement every week.

How do we know it isn't cider?
Or meths, which would explain his poor eyesight.

Even if my shopping was entirely strong spirits, no-one has yet explained
how it would be viable for me to collect it using a bicycle.

"Mrcheerful" wrote
Phil W Lee wrote:
"TMS320" considered


The weight is clue to liquid content. I doubt you buy a bag of
cement every week.

How do we know it isn't cider?
Or meths, which would explain his poor eyesight.

Even if my shopping was entirely strong spirits, no-one has yet explained
how it would be viable for me to collect it using a bicycle.

....err, you're buying too much for your your own good.

TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
Phil W Lee wrote:
"TMS320" considered


The weight is clue to liquid content. I doubt you buy a bag of
cement every week.

How do we know it isn't cider?
Or meths, which would explain his poor eyesight.

Even if my shopping was entirely strong spirits, no-one has yet
explained how it would be viable for me to collect it using a
bicycle.

...err, you're buying too much for your your own good.

it is not me that has the stutter.