A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 11th 11, 10:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code

On 11/04/2011 19:55, Squashme wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:53 am, wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony 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.


Apparently he found them useful:-

http://tinyurl.com/68q4x6w

He also apparently didn't like meat-eating much. He obviously approved
of wearing shorts. The Nazis were interested in the environment,
allegedly. I don't know where they stood on sandals.


On top of them, I would imagine.

Doesn't everyone (who wears sandals)?
Ads
  #32  
Old April 11th 11, 11:40 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Squashme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,146
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code

On Apr 11, 10:46*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 11/04/2011 19:55, Squashme wrote:



On Apr 11, 7:53 am, *wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony *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.


Apparently he found them useful:-


http://tinyurl.com/68q4x6w


He also apparently didn't like meat-eating much. He obviously approved
of wearing shorts. The Nazis were interested in the environment,
allegedly. I don't know where they stood on sandals.


On top of them, I would imagine.

Doesn't everyone (who wears sandals)?


I was bowling underarm.
  #33  
Old April 11th 11, 11:54 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
webreader
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 449
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code

On Apr 11, 7:53*am, 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,


Speed is not the only factor.

the greater the stopping distance


Stopping distance increases as speed gets less, is this called
'reverse physics'?

and the longer reaction time of the
drivers..


I fail to see what speed has to do with reaction time.


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.


Did Hitler invent motorways, I think not.

Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=051PZMaZClQ

Seems he did.
  #34  
Old April 11th 11, 11:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of the highwaycode

On 11/04/2011 19:55, Squashme wrote:

I thought you had died?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #35  
Old April 11th 11, 11:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code

On 11/04/2011 22:46, JNugent wrote:


Doesn't everyone (who wears sandals)?


What do you call a Frenchman wearing sandals?


Phillipe Phillop.

I'll get me coat....

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #36  
Old April 12th 11, 08:07 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code

On Apr 11, 8:54*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
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.

Motorways are hardly a safe places for motorists, due to the
dangerously high speeds there and multiple crashes. They are only
rated as safer because they don't kill pedestrians and cyclists who
are not there anyway.

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 typical motorist's view, i.e. "human life is worthless and the only
law is the law of the jungle".

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
  #37  
Old April 12th 11, 08:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,275
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of the highway code

Doug wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:54 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
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.

Motorways are hardly a safe places for motorists, due to the
dangerously high speeds there and multiple crashes. They are only
rated as safer because they don't kill pedestrians and cyclists who
are not there anyway.

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 typical motorist's view, i.e. "human life is worthless and the only
law is the law of the jungle".

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


You are wrong, motorways are a bit like air travel, actually very safe per
mile, but when there is a crash it can be very bad indeed. adding any extra
problems like cyclists and pedestrians would ruin that.


  #38  
Old April 12th 11, 10:39 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
thirty-six
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,049
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code

On Apr 11, 6:46*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 11/04/2011 15:28, Simon Mason wrote:



On Apr 11, 7:53 am, *wrote:
Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?


Surely if there was a driver that should have known the Highway Code,
it was this one.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-motorist-kill...


"Wall was sitting alongside her mother - a driving instructor - when
she lost control of the Suzuki Jimny she was driving home from a
shopping trip. Wall, who had only passed her driving test months
earlier, was looking at the message on her phone when she mounted a
pavement."


--
Simon Mason


Her mother should have stopped her if possible.
Her defence that she 'showed remorse' clashes with carrying her mobile
in court.


There's no GCSE for Decorum.
  #39  
Old April 12th 11, 10:42 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
thirty-six
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,049
Default Motorists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code

On Apr 11, 6:38*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 11/04/2011 07:53, Doug wrote:



On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony *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?


If you recall a few years ago, an accident that happened when a road
cone fell/was thrown of a motorway bridge causing an accident.
You agreed then that nothing could have been done to avoid the incident.
The HC was obeyed.





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..


So if cars go slower, the stopping distance increases, are you trying to
reinvent physics again.

Why would reaction time vary with speed?



You may well have asked, "why would reaction time vary with booze?"




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.


Would you explain Hitlers input to motorways?
I would have invoked Godwin's law, but somebody has got there first.


  #40  
Old April 12th 11, 10:48 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
thirty-six
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,049
Default Cyclists really should be tested on their knowledge of thehighway code

On Apr 7, 5:12*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2011 15:28, 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...s/2011/04/07/c...


I can recall such stories ever since the first stretch of M6 opened. They
became more frequent when the stretch from Haydock to Stafford opened in 1963.


Manchester Wheelers or Kirkby CC ?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Highway code Coyoteboy UK 13 November 23rd 07 01:11 AM
Highway code sections concerning drivers and cyclists D.M. Procida UK 2 May 26th 07 06:02 PM
How many cyclists to change the Highway Code? Ian Smith UK 0 May 25th 07 06:46 PM
Bit OT - New Highway Code Russ UK 5 February 5th 05 12:41 AM
Highway Code Changes Just zis Guy, you know? UK 14 May 5th 04 10:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.