Here we go again

Ekul Namsob said:

Brimstone said:

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

Quoted message said:

Brimstone <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 12:08 pm, Adrian <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Dave Larrington ([email hidden]) gurgled happily,
>>>> sounding much like they were saying :
>>>>
>>>>>>> Cyclists already pay the same VED as other low-emission
>>>>>>> vehicles.
>>>>>> You may wish to either narrow that statement down or
>>>>>> investigate a little further.
>>>>> Investigates:
>>>>
>>>>> Band A Up to 100 g/km CO2: VED £0.00
>>>>
>>>> Keep going.
>>>>
>>>> Clue: Count the wheels.
>>>
>>> Why should he need to? He said 'other', not 'all other'.
>>
>> Are you saying he was being economical with the truth, being
>> deliberately deceptive, lying or just being wrong?
>
> How about none of those?

Would you care to expand on that?

What's to exapand? You posited a number of options, I'm suggesting
that possibly none of those options apply.

Here we go again...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If there's one thing that irritates
the heck out of me on Usenet, it is the tendency of some people to
avoid giving honest answers. Please don't fall into the trap of
copying those people.

I wasn't answering, I was asking a question.

You were, therefore, avoiding giving an honest answer.

Untrue, I was inviting you to think.

Quoted message said:

Would you care
to suggest an alternative situation in which the previous poster was
not being economical with the truth, being deliberately deceptive,
lying or just being wrong?

If none of those are true then he is being totally truthful.

The number of wheels is not a guide with to rates of VED.

He is merely being correct in his use of English. Perhaps that's what cause
some people confusion.

in message
<[email hidden]>, Ekul

Namsob (') said:

Brimstone said:

Ekul Namsob said:

David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On Oct 5, 12:08 pm, Adrian <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Dave Larrington ([email hidden]) gurgled happily,
>> sounding much like they were saying :
>>
>>>>> Cyclists already pay the same VED as other low-emission vehicles.
>>>> You may wish to either narrow that statement down or investigate a
>>>> little further.
>>> Investigates:
>>
>>> Band A Up to 100 g/km CO2: VED £0.00
>>
>> Keep going.
>>
>> Clue: Count the wheels.
>
> Why should he need to? He said 'other', not 'all other'.

Are you saying he was being economical with the truth, being
deliberately deceptive, lying or just being wrong?

How about none of those?

Would you care to expand on that? If there's one thing that irritates
the heck out of me on Usenet, it is the tendency of some people to avoid
giving honest answers. Please don't fall into the trap of copying those
people.

The honest answer is that if you commute in a car which emits the same
amount of carbon dioxide as you do on a bicycle, you pay no road tax. The
number of wheels have precisely nothing whatever to do with the case
(except, of course, that if you use a bicycle you leave more road space
for other road users).

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

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

Brimstone said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Brimstone said:

"Ekul Namsob" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...
> Brimstone <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 5, 12:08 pm, Adrian <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> Dave Larrington ([email hidden]) gurgled happily,
>>>>> sounding much like they were saying :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cyclists already pay the same VED as other low-emission
>>>>>>>> vehicles.
>>>>>>> You may wish to either narrow that statement down or
>>>>>>> investigate a little further.
>>>>>> Investigates:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Band A Up to 100 g/km CO2: VED £0.00
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep going.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clue: Count the wheels.
>>>>
>>>> Why should he need to? He said 'other', not 'all other'.
>>>
>>> Are you saying he was being economical with the truth, being
>>> deliberately deceptive, lying or just being wrong?
>>
>> How about none of those?
>
> Would you care to expand on that?

What's to exapand? You posited a number of options, I'm suggesting
that possibly none of those options apply.

Here we go again...

Quoted message said:

> If there's one thing that irritates
> the heck out of me on Usenet, it is the tendency of some people to
> avoid giving honest answers. Please don't fall into the trap of
> copying those people.

I wasn't answering, I was asking a question.

You were, therefore, avoiding giving an honest answer.

Untrue, I was inviting you to think.

Quoted message said:

Would you care
to suggest an alternative situation in which the previous poster was
not being economical with the truth, being deliberately deceptive,
lying or just being wrong?

If none of those are true then he is being totally truthful.

The number of wheels is not a guide with to rates of VED.

He is merely being correct in his use of English. Perhaps that's what cause
some people confusion.

Really? The implication that I, and I would suggest many other users of
the English language would draw from such use, particularly where the
context was of two-wheeled vehicles, was 'all other'. I note he has not
chosen to comment.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

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

Quoted message said:

OG said:

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

Quoted message said:

Response to OG:
>>>> "My brother was run into from behind in August last year by a
>>>> cyclist, hit his head against a wall, died 6 weeks later still in a
>>>> coma "
>>> Where did this 'quote' come from?
>> It came from the post Spindrift was replying to, .
> Not in my newsreader it didn't, nor on google groups, both of which
> have
> spindrift replying to a posting by Brimstone about out of date satnav
> databases.
Also on my newsreader.

> It looks like a made up quote to me.

No, the quote came from this post, according to my NR -

Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

which isn't found on GG; however, if you go here -

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/646d2e2bfc927d66

you'll see the original. Sounds like something hiccupped.

Thanks for that, and apologies to spindrift and Bazza

Sorry OG for my previous post calling you an arshole, replied before I saw
this post.
It was a bit spiteful of me

Probably justified under the circumstances.

Ekul Namsob said:

Hooch said:

Martin Dann <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why don't cars and lorries wait behind me when approaching junctions and
especially red traffic lights?
Instead as I am freewheeling up to a junction I here an engine rev up,
see the driver swerve around and in front of me, and skid to a halt. I
see this nearly every day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps it's to make sure you don't go through a red light like most
of you [censored] do?

Quoted message said:

Have you any evidence for that?

He probably spends a lot of time in Inner London.

Quoted message said:

How does it compare with the numbers of
motorists who run red lights?

Numbers or proportion?

Quoted message said:

I was very nearly rear-ended yesterday by a driver who was clearly so
used to running red lights that my stopping while the light was still
amber clearly came as rather a surprise.

There's one danger that would be smaller if drivers could reliably
expect cyclists to stop at red lights.

I'll leave it to Conor to explain the concept of braking distance.

JNugent said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Hooch said:

Martin Dann <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Why don't cars and lorries wait behind me when approaching junctions and
>especially red traffic lights?
>Instead as I am freewheeling up to a junction I here an engine rev up,
>see the driver swerve around and in front of me, and skid to a halt. I
>see this nearly every day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps it's to make sure you don't go through a red light like most
of you [censored] do?

Quoted message said:

Have you any evidence for that?

He probably spends a lot of time in Inner London.

Quoted message said:

How does it compare with the numbers of
motorists who run red lights?

Numbers or proportion?

Your choice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was very nearly rear-ended yesterday by a driver who was clearly so
used to running red lights that my stopping while the light was still
amber clearly came as rather a surprise.

There's one danger that would be smaller if drivers could reliably
expect cyclists to stop at red lights.

I may be a cyclist, but when I'm in the Mini I'm mostly a driver.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Simon Brooke said:

in message
<[email hidden]>, Ekul

Namsob (') said:

Brimstone said:

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 12:08 pm, Adrian <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Dave Larrington ([email hidden]) gurgled happily,
>>> sounding much like they were saying :
>>>
>>>>>> Cyclists already pay the same VED as other low-emission vehicles.
>>>>> You may wish to either narrow that statement down or investigate a
>>>>> little further.
>>>> Investigates:
>>>
>>>> Band A Up to 100 g/km CO2: VED £0.00
>>>
>>> Keep going.
>>>
>>> Clue: Count the wheels.
>>
>> Why should he need to? He said 'other', not 'all other'.
>
> Are you saying he was being economical with the truth, being
> deliberately deceptive, lying or just being wrong?

How about none of those?

Would you care to expand on that? If there's one thing that irritates
the heck out of me on Usenet, it is the tendency of some people to avoid
giving honest answers. Please don't fall into the trap of copying those
people.

The honest answer is that if you commute in a car which emits the same
amount of carbon dioxide as you do on a bicycle, you pay no road tax. The
number of wheels have precisely nothing whatever to do with the case
(except, of course, that if you use a bicycle you leave more road space
for other road users).

Indeed. You, being honest, mentioned the word 'car'. The poster in
question just mentioned 'other low-emission vehicles'.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

NM said:

Silk said:

Conor said:

You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.

Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)

On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the centre of
the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up to 90 repmobiles,
death wish IMO.

The one with the deathwish would not be in the centre of the n/s lane.
That cyclist's road position would most likely have made him more
visible to traffic, which would have been obliged to take genuine
avoiding action.

Once, when young and naïve, I cycled along the gutter of the A47 Acle
Straight. That was terrifying. Nowadays, it's primary position all the
way. That is not terrifying.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob said:

JNugent said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Hooch <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Martin Dann <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Why don't cars and lorries wait behind me when approaching junctions and
>>especially red traffic lights?
>>Instead as I am freewheeling up to a junction I here an engine rev up,
>>see the driver swerve around and in front of me, and skid to a halt. I
>>see this nearly every day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Perhaps it's to make sure you don't go through a red light like most
>of you [censored] do?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you any evidence for that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He probably spends a lot of time in Inner London.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How does it compare with the numbers of
motorists who run red lights?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Numbers or proportion?

Quoted message said:

Your choice.

I thought it was you doing the asking.

It's fairly obvious that numbers are unhelpful because motor vehicles
far outnumber push-bikes everywhere.

Proportions? Well, the proportion of motor vehicle journeys which
involve headlong sailing through red traffic lights, past stationary
traffic patiently waiting at them, or scattering hapless pedestrians
crossing a pelicon (just as though the lights were at green), must be
very low indeed. Of course, no-one can deny that one incident is one
too many - just as it is with bikes, many of whose riders so
notoriously have such contempt for the rules of the road (especially
red traffic lights) and other road users that a campaign to get them
to even think about stopping at red lights is thought necessary - by
other, more responsible, cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was very nearly rear-ended yesterday by a driver who was clearly so
used to running red lights that my stopping while the light was still
amber clearly came as rather a surprise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's one danger that would be smaller if drivers could reliably
expect cyclists to stop at red lights.

Quoted message said:

I may be a cyclist, but when I'm in the Mini I'm mostly a driver.

With respect, that's irrelevant. It's still one danger that would be
smaller if drivers could reliably expect cyclists to stop at red
lights, whether you were on a bike or in a lorry yesterday.

JNugent said:

Ekul Namsob said:

JNugent said:

Ekul Namsob wrote:
>I was very nearly rear-ended yesterday by a driver who was clearly so
>used to running red lights that my stopping while the light was still
>amber clearly came as rather a surprise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's one danger that would be smaller if drivers could reliably
expect cyclists to stop at red lights.

Quoted message said:

I may be a cyclist, but when I'm in the Mini I'm mostly a driver.

With respect, that's irrelevant. It's still one danger that would be
smaller if drivers could reliably expect cyclists to stop at red
lights, whether you were on a bike or in a lorry yesterday.

Wrong-o. If a driver expects others to do /anything/ reliably, he'll be
caught flat-footed often enough to be a danger to himself and others.
If he expects cyclists to run reds sometimes, or maybe stop -- who knows
the mind of a lycra loon? -- he'll be a lot less stressed and make
mistakes less often.

On 6 Oct, 20:44, [email hidden] (Ekul Namsob)

Quoted message said:

NM said:

Silk said:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:35:38 +0100, Conor wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)

Quoted message said:

On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the centre of
the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up to 90 repmobiles,
death wish IMO.

The one with the deathwish would not be in the centre of the n/s lane.
That cyclist's road position would most likely have made him more
visible to traffic, which would have been obliged to take genuine
avoiding action.

Once, when young and naïve, I cycled along the gutter of the A47 Acle
Straight. That was terrifying. Nowadays, it's primary position all the
way. That is not terrifying.

Cheers,
Luke

Is taking the lane the correct thing to do if cycling on a dual
carriageway with a 70mph speed limit?

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam

Lea (') said:

On 6 Oct, 20:44, [email hidden] (Ekul Namsob)

Quoted message said:

NM said:

Silk wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:35:38 +0100, Conor wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

> Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)

Quoted message said:

On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the centre
of the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up to 90
repmobiles, death wish IMO.

The one with the deathwish would not be in the centre of the n/s lane.
That cyclist's road position would most likely have made him more
visible to traffic, which would have been obliged to take genuine
avoiding action.

Once, when young and naïve, I cycled along the gutter of the A47 Acle
Straight. That was terrifying. Nowadays, it's primary position all the
way. That is not terrifying.

Is taking the lane the correct thing to do if cycling on a dual
carriageway with a 70mph speed limit?

Definitely. More so than on any other road. If you want to stay alive, that
is.

A dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit forms part of my daily commute.
If you allow yourself to be forced into secondary position, the [censored]
will pass too close too fast. The only way you can defend yourself is to
get into primary and force them to make proper overtaking manouvers. You
get shouted at now and again, but you stay alive.

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

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

Adam Lea said:

On 6 Oct, 20:44, [email hidden] (Ekul Namsob)

Quoted message said:

NM <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the centre of
the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up to 90 repmobiles,
death wish IMO.

The one with the deathwish would not be in the centre of the n/s lane.
That cyclist's road position would most likely have made him more
visible to traffic, which would have been obliged to take genuine
avoiding action.

Once, when young and naïve, I cycled along the gutter of the A47 Acle
Straight. That was terrifying. Nowadays, it's primary position all the
way. That is not terrifying.

Quoted message said:

Is taking the lane the correct thing to do if cycling on a dual
carriageway with a 70mph speed limit?

Absolutely. It is, perhaps, even more important. Motorists have the
option of overtaking using the appropriately named overtaking lane.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

JNugent said:

Ekul Namsob said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I was very nearly rear-ended yesterday by a driver who was clearly so
>used to running red lights that my stopping while the light was still
>amber clearly came as rather a surprise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's one danger that would be smaller if drivers could reliably
expect cyclists to stop at red lights.

Quoted message said:

I may be a cyclist, but when I'm in the Mini I'm mostly a driver.

With respect, that's irrelevant. It's still one danger that would be
smaller if drivers could reliably expect cyclists to stop at red
lights, whether you were on a bike or in a lorry yesterday.

A driver nearly drove in to the back of my wife's car because some
cyclists don't stop at red lights? I really must be missing something
here.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam

Lea (') said:

On 6 Oct, 20:44, [email hidden] (Ekul Namsob)

Quoted message said:

NM <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Silk wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:35:38 +0100, Conor wrote:

>>>You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.

>>Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)

>On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the centre
>of the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up to 90
>repmobiles, death wish IMO.

The one with the deathwish would not be in the centre of the n/s lane.
That cyclist's road position would most likely have made him more
visible to traffic, which would have been obliged to take genuine
avoiding action.

Once, when young and naïve, I cycled along the gutter of the A47 Acle
Straight. That was terrifying. Nowadays, it's primary position all the
way. That is not terrifying.

Is taking the lane the correct thing to do if cycling on a dual
carriageway with a 70mph speed limit?

Definitely. More so than on any other road. If you want to stay alive, that
is.

A dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit forms part of my daily commute.
If you allow yourself to be forced into secondary position, the [censored]
will pass too close too fast. The only way you can defend yourself is to
get into primary and force them to make proper overtaking manouvers. You
get shouted at now and again, but you stay alive.

Hmmm... "the [censored]", eh?

Do you think you have the correct attitude for travelling on a road?

Ekul Namsob said:

JNugent said:

Ekul Namsob said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>I was very nearly rear-ended yesterday by a driver who was clearly so
>>used to running red lights that my stopping while the light was still
>>amber clearly came as rather a surprise.

Quoted message said:

>There's one danger that would be smaller if drivers could reliably
>expect cyclists to stop at red lights.

Quoted message said:

I may be a cyclist, but when I'm in the Mini I'm mostly a driver.

With respect, that's irrelevant. It's still one danger that would be
smaller if drivers could reliably expect cyclists to stop at red
lights, whether you were on a bike or in a lorry yesterday.

A driver nearly drove in to the back of my wife's car because some
cyclists don't stop at red lights? I really must be missing something
here.

There is no link. You merely reminded me of something important (as
you fully intended to), whether or not someone "nearly drove in to"
[sic] the back of a car you were driving.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam

Lea (') said:

On 6 Oct, 20:44, [email hidden] (Ekul Namsob)

Quoted message said:

NM <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Silk wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:35:38 +0100, Conor wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the centre
> of the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up to 90
> repmobiles, death wish IMO.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The one with the deathwish would not be in the centre of the n/s lane.
That cyclist's road position would most likely have made him more
visible to traffic, which would have been obliged to take genuine
avoiding action.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Once, when young and naïve, I cycled along the gutter of the A47 Acle
Straight. That was terrifying. Nowadays, it's primary position all the
way. That is not terrifying.

Quoted message said:

Is taking the lane the correct thing to do if cycling on a dual
carriageway with a 70mph speed limit?

Definitely. More so than on any other road. If you want to stay alive, that
is.

A dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit forms part of my daily commute.
If you allow yourself to be forced into secondary position, the [censored]
will pass too close too fast. The only way you can defend yourself is to
get into primary and force them to make proper overtaking manouvers. You
get shouted at now and again, but you stay alive.

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

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.- Hide quotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you find an alternative route to work if the DC is so
dangerous?

JNugent said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

Adam Lea (') said:

On 6 Oct, 20:44, [email hidden] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:

> NM <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Silk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:35:38 +0100, Conor wrote:
>
>>>> You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.
>
>>> Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)
>
>> On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the
>> centre of the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up
>> to 90 repmobiles, death wish IMO.
>
> The one with the deathwish would not be in the centre of the n/s
> lane. That cyclist's road position would most likely have made him
> more visible to traffic, which would have been obliged to take
> genuine avoiding action.
>
> Once, when young and naïve, I cycled along the gutter of the A47
> Acle Straight. That was terrifying. Nowadays, it's primary
> position all the way. That is not terrifying.

Is taking the lane the correct thing to do if cycling on a dual
carriageway with a 70mph speed limit?

Definitely. More so than on any other road. If you want to stay
alive, that is.

A dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit forms part of my daily
commute. If you allow yourself to be forced into secondary position,
the [censored] will pass too close too fast. The only way you can
defend yourself is to get into primary and force them to make proper
overtaking manouvers. You get shouted at now and again, but you stay
alive.

Hmmm... "the [censored]", eh?

Do you think you have the correct attitude for travelling on a road?

Why don't you try using a bicycle and find out?

Sir Jeremy said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
Adam

Lea (') said:

On 6 Oct, 20:44, [email hidden] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> NM <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Silk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:35:38 +0100, Conor wrote:

Quoted message said:

>>>> You'll find most lorries will hang back for a cyclist.

Quoted message said:

>>> Is that so you can get a better aim? ;-)

Quoted message said:

>> On the A30 dual there was a cyclist doing all of 10 mph in the
>> centre of the n/s lane rest of the traffic min 56mph trucks, up
>> to 90 repmobiles, death wish IMO.

Quoted message said:

> The one with the deathwish would not be in the centre of the n/s
> lane. That cyclist's road position would most likely have made him
> more visible to traffic, which would have been obliged to take
> genuine avoiding action.

Quoted message said:

> Once, when young and naïve, I cycled along the gutter of the A47
> Acle Straight. That was terrifying. Nowadays, it's primary
> position all the way. That is not terrifying.

Quoted message said:

Is taking the lane the correct thing to do if cycling on a dual
carriageway with a 70mph speed limit?

Definitely. More so than on any other road. If you want to stay
alive, that
is.

A dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit forms part of my daily
commute.
If you allow yourself to be forced into secondary position, the
[censored]
will pass too close too fast. The only way you can defend yourself
is to
get into primary and force them to make proper overtaking manouvers.
You
get shouted at now and again, but you stay alive.

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

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you find an alternative route to work if the DC is so
dangerous?

The dual carraigeway is perfectly safe. It's a small minority of people who
use that cause the problems.

Sir Jeremy said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lea ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is taking the lane the correct thing to do if cycling on a dual
carriageway with a 70mph speed limit?

Definitely. More so than on any other road. If you want to stay alive, that
is.

A dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit forms part of my daily commute.
If you allow yourself to be forced into secondary position, the [censored]
will pass too close too fast. The only way you can defend yourself is to
get into primary and force them to make proper overtaking manouvers. You
get shouted at now and again, but you stay alive.

Quoted message said:

Why don't you find an alternative route to work if the DC is so
dangerous?

I think the point is that the dual carriageway is not dangerous. Some
people's driving, particularly when they are not persuaded to overtake
properly by cyclists in the primary position, does, however, fall way
short of the mark.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>