Re: What's the most hair raising road experience that you've had ?

I'm getting really fed up with these lame trolls and cross-posts. I'm
unsubscribing for a week to see if it improves.

in message <[email hidden]>, SimonJ

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What have been the most hair raising (whatever your own definition
of that is) road experience/s that you've had so far and please
elaborate and describe what the circumstances were.

As a cyclist, I have twice been undertaken by motorcyclists.

Maybe its time you reviewed your riding position then.

Quoted message said:

Terrifying doesn't really cover it: in both cases, if I had moved to
my normal riding position, about a metre out from the kerb, they
would have

run

Quoted message said:

me over, with severe, possibly fatal, consequences.

Why weren't you there anyway?

Because it's very dangerous, and is consequently against the official
advice the government gives on riding position (see 'primary riding
position'😉. You should normally cycle in the middle of where the car
would be if you were in a car, /except/ at places where you are happy
that is completely safe to be overtaken.

And when in a car you /must/ not overtake a bike unless there would be
room to overtake a car. What part of Highway Code rule 139 do you not
remember?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous

"SimonJ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe its time you reviewed your riding position then.

In the unlikely event that you are not a troll, I'll respond. Nothing

wrong

Quoted message said:

with my riding position: both incidents occurred at road junctions where
I
was going straight on,

Which is in total contradiction of your earlier comment "if I had moved to
my normal riding position, about a metre out from the kerb"

No contradiction: if I had moved over to the left as normal, expecting the
traffic on my left to turn left, they would have struck me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the motorcycles were in the left hand lane, and
should have gone right.

Eh?

apologies, blame overwork: "right" should read "left"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Strangely
> enough, I caught up with both of them, fortunately after I had burned
> some
> of the adrenalin aggression rush off, and had some extremely blunt

words

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for
> both. Not to mention very direct threats about what would happen if

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> did it again.
>
[censored], I bet they [censored] themselves.

One of them certainly did, the other was a complete and utter w****r who
thought that he hadn't done anything wrong.

Pot, Kettle?

and what, precisely, had I done wrong?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored], I'd better get that NOS kit and turbo installed on the GSXR,
wouldn't
want you catching me up.

Perhaps if you ride properly I won't need to.

BTW, after this morning, the count has gone up to three. Cycling in a

cycle

Quoted message said:

lane in a fairly wide road, when a total cretin on a motorcycle
undertakes
me by riding into and then out of a layby.

Now why would he want to go to the trouble of riding in and out of a
layby,
if you were maintaining a sensible riding position, such that he could
have
overtaken you easily?

I've no idea, I was hoping you could explain. As I've already pointed out,
I was in a cycle lane, don't think you can get much more sensible as a place
to ride on a bicycle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, he got away,otherwise you
might just be reading about it in the papers.

"Police were today called to a road rage incident on the A123. They
arrived
on scene to find a motorcyclist rolling on the floor, pissing himself
laughing, with a very slight scuff mark on his helmet.
Standing nearby was a slightly confuses looking lycra-and-blue-sunglasses
clad cyclist, nursing a badly bent tyre pump."

Most humourous, almost funny in fact. Keep trying and don't quit the day
job.

Quoted message said:

You may want to ask yourself why this keeps happening to you, I've
certainly
never heard of it before, and I find it very hard to beleive that it keeps
happening to you through no fault of your own.

This has happened to me three times in about five years, so I don't quite
understand why you think "it keeps happening to me"

Again, I was kind of hoping that you would be able to explain the behaviour
of your fellow bikers, but I see that you are just another troll.

goodbye

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And when in a car you /must/ not overtake a bike unless there would be
room to overtake a car. What part of Highway Code rule 139 do you not
remember?

Well I dont remember the bit that says "And when in a car you /must/ not
overtake a bike unless there would be room to overtake a car"

Then again, I'm not alone in not remembering that bit, it would appear that
the DSA have also forgoten that bit, beacause they have left it out of the
highway code on the DSA website.

SimonJ said:

Quoted message said:

And when in a car you /must/ not overtake a bike unless there would be
room to overtake a car. What part of Highway Code rule 139 do you not
remember?

Well I dont remember the bit that says "And when in a car you /must/ not
overtake a bike unless there would be room to overtake a car"

Then again, I'm not alone in not remembering that bit, it would appear that
the DSA have also forgoten that bit, beacause they have left it out of the
highway code on the DSA website.

I says "give a cycle as much room as you would give any other vehicle";
ergo undertaking is not doing this. I notice they have removed the 6
foot rule. I would like to know what constitutes a busy road that we
are not supposed to cycle two abreast along, one with a car whose
driver wishes to overtake you and cannot wait for a convenient spot
perhaps?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

official advice the government gives on riding position (see 'primary riding
position'😉. You should normally cycle in the middle of where the car
would be if you were in a car,

Simon, you often state this, which I think is from Cyclecraft. I know
Cyclecraft is endorsed by ROSPA, but is it actually official government
advice?

The picture of the cyclist in the highway code for rule 139 is
certainly not in the centre of where a car would be. He's not even
where the car's left tyre would be. In fact he's so close to the kerb,
he wouldn't be able to make a left signal without swiping a pedestrian
on the pavement.

Surely the Highway Code is also "official government advice" and it's
advice that far more road users are familiar with than have even heard
of Cyclecraft?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And when in a car you /must/ not overtake a bike unless there would be
room to overtake a car. What part of Highway Code rule 139 do you not
remember?

Well I dont remember the bit that says "And when in a car you /must/ not
overtake a bike unless there would be room to overtake a car"

Then again, I'm not alone in not remembering that bit, it would appear

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the DSA have also forgoten that bit, beacause they have left it out of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

highway code on the DSA website.

I says "give a cycle as much room as you would give any other vehicle";

So if I overtake a car, I would give it 3 feet of space, for instance. So if
I overtake a bike, I also need to give it 3 feet of space, but there would
not need to be anything like the same room needed to overtake a car, because
of the narrower width of the bike.
Of course, if I was overtaking a bike while on a motorbike, I could quite
easily do it without having to enter the opposing lane, still leaving plenty
of room for the bike. Unless of course muppet on the bike was riding so far
out to the middle of the road that he left insufficient room.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because it has happened to you three times in five years.
I expect for the average cyclist it happens no times in how ever many years
they are cycling.

Probably because his normal route takes him past a junction with a left
feeder lane (by the sound of it) which is often empty so used by
m/cyclists to quickly nip through, without realising how disconcerting
this can be to a cyclist.

IME, motorcyclists are normally very concious of the special
difficulties faced by cyclists.

I don't know if I'm an "average" cyclist, but I've had a car use a long
layby-style bus stop to overtake me on the inside. I was riding well
over to the left, and there were two lanes (urban dual carriageway).
The outside lane was busy so the car-driver decided to nip past using
the bus stop instead of waiting - unfortunately she also didn't take
account of the fact I was moving not stationary and I had to emergincy
stop when she pulled back out.

Rich said:

I was in a cycle lane, don't think you can get much more sensible as a place
to ride on a bicycle.

That depends on the cycle lane.

d.

SimonJ said:

Unless of course muppet on the bike was riding so far
out to the middle of the road that he left insufficient room.

Obviously, if there is plenty of room on the road, it would be
inconsiderate for a cyclist not to make room for cars/motorbikes to
pass, but cyclists are /not/ obliged to always ride in such a position
as to make it convenient for cars/motorbikes to pass.

If I ride anywhere near the middle of the road, it's usually to make it
clear to other car drivers that there isn't enough room for them to
pass - if you ride close to the kerb, many motorists take this as a cue
to squeeze through, even if there is barely enough space to do so
without clipping the handlebars with their wing mirror.

Personally, I don't care if you want to get to work a few seconds
quicker - that's less important to me than my personal safety.

d.

"Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've no idea, I was hoping you could explain. As I've already pointed

out,

Quoted message said:

I was in a cycle lane, don't think you can get much more sensible as a

place

Quoted message said:

to ride on a bicycle.

See http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/ (facility of the month) to
show why you are wrong.

T

SimonJ said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And when in a car you /must/ not overtake a bike unless there would be
> room to overtake a car. What part of Highway Code rule 139 do you not
> remember?
>
Well I dont remember the bit that says "And when in a car you /must/ not
overtake a bike unless there would be room to overtake a car"

Then again, I'm not alone in not remembering that bit, it would appear

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the DSA have also forgoten that bit, beacause they have left it out of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

highway code on the DSA website.

I says "give a cycle as much room as you would give any other vehicle";

So if I overtake a car, I would give it 3 feet of space, for instance. So if
I overtake a bike, I also need to give it 3 feet of space, but there would
not need to be anything like the same room needed to overtake a car, because
of the narrower width of the bike.
Of course, if I was overtaking a bike while on a motorbike, I could quite
easily do it without having to enter the opposing lane, still leaving plenty
of room for the bike. Unless of course muppet on the bike was riding so far
out to the middle of the road that he left insufficient room.

The 6 foot rule was better; because;
a. Cycles tend to need to change where they ride in the road due to
traffic conditions, potholes, broken glass etc etc, and also wobble
when they look round (no mirrors)
b. The air shock of a vehicle passing a cycle is much more noticeable
than a heavier vehicle (and it's pretty bad on a scooter, I know)

I don't know the width of the average road, but say I am riding in the
primary position which I will do unless I know a car is coming up, you
need to allow 6 feet, plus the width of the car, This strikes me as
requiring you to cross the centre line; in which case you must treat me
as any other vehicle. On a motorbike you need less room between me and
the centre line so don't need to take as much account of uncoming
traffic, but you should still give me 6 feet.
But a motorbike undertaking a bicycle is breaking every rule in the
book. Two wrongs (except the bicycle is not in the wrong to ride in the
PRP) do not make a right.

SimonJ said:

Now why would he want to go to the trouble of riding in and out of a layby,
if you were maintaining a sensible riding position, such that he could have
overtaken you easily?

Probably because there was congestion on the road and motorbike was
nipping up inside near to (possibly in) cycle lane. I've had hundreds
of motorbikes do same to me although I can't see any problem with it.
If there was a layby I'd have pulled into it and let motorbike overtake
on right. Then everyone's happy.

Quoted message said:

If I ride anywhere near the middle of the road, it's usually to make it
clear to other car drivers that there isn't enough room for them to
pass - if you ride close to the kerb, many motorists take this as a cue
to squeeze through, even if there is barely enough space to do so
without clipping the handlebars with their wing mirror.

I cant think of any roads where it is too narrow for a motorbike and a cycle
to pass.

SimonJ said:

I cant think of any roads where it is too narrow for a motorbike and a cycle
to pass.

You're not thinking hard enough. In any case, even if the road is wide
enough in itself, traffic conditions may make passing unsafe.

d.

in message <[email hidden]>, SimonJ

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And when in a car you /must/ not overtake a bike unless there
> would be room to overtake a car. What part of Highway Code rule
> 139 do you not remember?
>
Well I dont remember the bit that says "And when in a car you
/must/ not overtake a bike unless there would be room to overtake a
car"

Then again, I'm not alone in not remembering that bit, it would
appear

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the DSA have also forgoten that bit, beacause they have left it out
of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

highway code on the DSA website.

I says "give a cycle as much room as you would give any other
vehicle";

So if I overtake a car, I would give it 3 feet of space, for instance.
So if I overtake a bike, I also need to give it 3 feet of space, but
there would not need to be anything like the same room needed to
overtake a car, because of the narrower width of the bike.
Of course, if I was overtaking a bike while on a motorbike, I could
quite easily do it without having to enter the opposing lane, still
leaving plenty of room for the bike. Unless of course muppet on the
bike was riding so far out to the middle of the road that he left
insufficient room.

No, you couldn't. Resit your driving test with particular attention to
the highway code. The cyclist is strongly advised - by the Department
of Transport, in Cyclecraft - to use the primary riding position except
when he/she is happy to be overtaken (i.e. the cyclist thinks it's safe
for you to overtake). If the cyclist is in the primary riding position
you cannot safely overtake without going into the next lane -that's
what the primary riding position /means/.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

in message <[email hidden]>,

iakobski (') said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

official advice the government gives on riding position (see
'primary riding position'😉. You should normally cycle in the middle
of where the car would be if you were in a car,

Simon, you often state this, which I think is from Cyclecraft. I know
Cyclecraft is endorsed by ROSPA, but is it actually official
government advice?

Yes, it's published by HMSO on behalf of the Department [of|for]
Transport.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

Quoted message said:

No, you couldn't. Resit your driving test with particular attention to
the highway code. The cyclist is strongly advised - by the Department
of Transport, in Cyclecraft - to use the primary riding position except
when he/she is happy to be overtaken (i.e. the cyclist thinks it's safe
for you to overtake). If the cyclist is in the primary riding position
you cannot safely overtake without going into the next lane -that's
what the primary riding position /means/.

As we have already established, the Highway Code makes no mention of the
'primary riding position'.

davek said:

SimonJ said:

Unless of course muppet on the bike was riding so far
out to the middle of the road that he left insufficient room.

Obviously, if there is plenty of room on the road, it would be
inconsiderate for a cyclist not to make room for cars/motorbikes to
pass, but cyclists are /not/ obliged to always ride in such a position
as to make it convenient for cars/motorbikes to pass.

If I ride anywhere near the middle of the road, it's usually to make it
clear to other car drivers that there isn't enough room for them to
pass - if you ride close to the kerb, many motorists take this as a cue
to squeeze through, even if there is barely enough space to do so
without clipping the handlebars with their wing mirror.

Personally, I don't care if you want to get to work a few seconds
quicker - that's less important to me than my personal safety.

I must admit I had not heard of the PRP until I started reading this
newsgroup; although I have been riding more or less in it for years; it
gives you the best visibility, road surface, and of course (if
required) a refuge to move to when a car decides to overtake you
against oncoming traffic. It is very noticeable when I am driving a car
how quickly a queue forms behind me when I find myself driving behind a
cyclist, a few seconds delay perhaps but I always wait until a safe
position to pass with the right amount of space. Car drivers should be
more concerned with drivers who maintain the same average speed
irrespective of road condition or even accelerate when someone attempts
to overtake them; the time taken to pass a car safely is much more than
a bicycle due to the relative speeds.