Idiots on the A1

[Robert Peffers.]

"Geoff Lane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....." <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I crawled along behind two cyclists on a narrow Devon lane recently.
>> They were the epitome of 'smug' - dressed in bloody silly lycra
>> costumes with daft pointed pixie helmets and wrap-around sunglasses
>> as they slowly rode two abreast up a hill, preventing anything from
>> passing them.
>
>> The emanations of self-righteous 'greenness' coming from these two
>> gaily coloured carnival performers was almost overpowering! - and if
>> someone finally lost their temper and drove over them and their bloody
>> bicycles it would be hard to condemn them for their actions.
>
> As a motorist, caravanner, and cyclist:
>
> I suspect that they were just protecting themselves from unsafe motorists
> and you from yourself. This was a _narrow_ lane (your assertion), where I
> suspect that defensive positioning is warranted. You need road width of at
> least the width of your vehicle plus 1.6m (600mm for the cyclist's
> handlebars + 1m safety clearance) to pass a cyclist in safety - and that's
> if the cyclist is riding "in the gutter". If the cyclist is riding
> correctly in the secondary riding position (approximately where your
> nearside wheels would track), you're going to need a much wider road.
> Also,
> it's dangerous to overtake approaching the brow of a hill.
>
> Reading between your lines, and particularly your second paragraph, I
> suspect that if you could have "squeezed past" you would have - even
> though
> that would have been unsafe. So, IMO the cyclists' are completely
> vindicated.
>
> --
> Geoff
Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.
Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
and it shows.
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

 

[marc]

Robert Peffers. wrote:
> "Geoff Lane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....." <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I crawled along behind two cyclists on a narrow Devon lane recently.
>>> They were the epitome of 'smug' - dressed in bloody silly lycra
>>> costumes with daft pointed pixie helmets and wrap-around sunglasses
>>> as they slowly rode two abreast up a hill, preventing anything from
>>> passing them.
>>> The emanations of self-righteous 'greenness' coming from these two
>>> gaily coloured carnival performers was almost overpowering! - and if
>>> someone finally lost their temper and drove over them and their bloody
>>> bicycles it would be hard to condemn them for their actions.
>> As a motorist, caravanner, and cyclist:
>>
>> I suspect that they were just protecting themselves from unsafe motorists
>> and you from yourself. This was a _narrow_ lane (your assertion), where I
>> suspect that defensive positioning is warranted. You need road width of at
>> least the width of your vehicle plus 1.6m (600mm for the cyclist's
>> handlebars + 1m safety clearance) to pass a cyclist in safety - and that's
>> if the cyclist is riding "in the gutter". If the cyclist is riding
>> correctly in the secondary riding position (approximately where your
>> nearside wheels would track), you're going to need a much wider road.
>> Also,
>> it's dangerous to overtake approaching the brow of a hill.
>>
>> Reading between your lines, and particularly your second paragraph, I
>> suspect that if you could have "squeezed past" you would have - even
>> though
>> that would have been unsafe. So, IMO the cyclists' are completely
>> vindicated.
>>
>> --
>> Geoff
> Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.
> Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
> and it shows.


Which law is that, asking as a cyclist who has passed his driving
test,three times.

 

[Robert Peffers.]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:59:36 -0000 someone who may be Geoff Lane
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>if
>>> someone finally lost their temper and drove over them and their bloody
>>> bicycles it would be hard to condemn them for their actions.
>
> It is always interesting when the mask slips and the "poor
> downtrodden motorist" is revealed in their true form.
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Perhaps if the two abreast idiot cyclists had known the law the motorist
would not be so upset about cyclists in general. Only two minutes ago I saw
two pass my gate riding two abreast ON THE PAVEMENT.
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

 

[Clive George]

"Robert Peffers." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Because, you bloody idiot, the complaint is about the ones illegally using
> the roads.

Which ones would that be?

clive

 

[Simon D]

After serious thinking Robert Peffers. wrote :
> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Artleknock wrote:
>>> Before I start a rant - I have been a cyclist all my life.
>>> On Sunday morning the 5th I was driving down the A1 about a couple of
>>> miles short of the first A1M after Scotch corner when I joined a long
>>> tail back of traffic. On finaly reaching the hold up it was a bloke on
>>> a bike, drop handle bars, crash hat, lycra budgie smugglers, the
>>> works, riding on the carriageway!! A bit further on there was a
>>> marshal at the next turn off. The idiots were doing time trials on a
>>> major trunk road on the same day that all the holiday makers were
>>> heading home from up north.
>>
>> I regularly ride on dual carriage way A roads. In fact I commute to work on
>> a dual carriage way. I have no choice about this as my company is placed
>> next to a dual carriage way.
>>
>> Do you object that I have to ride in the carriageway, or do you expect me
>> to get off and bow as you pass.
>>
>> If you truly are a cyclist as you claim, why are you ranting about cyclists
>> legally using British roads.
> Because, you bloody idiot, the complaint is about the ones illegally using
> the roads.

Perhaps you should check the law? You could then reconsider who the
idiot in this thread actually is. It'll be the Cycle Racing on Highways
Regulations 1960 (with 1980 and 1995 amendments) that you're looking
for.

--
Simon

 

[Tony Raven]

Robert Peffers. wrote:
>
> Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.
>

Except the law doesn't. Of course if you think I am wrong feel free to
cite the relevant Act or Regulation.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

Robert Peffers. wrote:
>
> Because, you bloody idiot, the complaint is about the ones illegally using
> the roads.
>

Which would those be and why?

Tony

 

[Robert Peffers.]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... wrote:
>>
>> I crawled along behind two cyclists on a narrow Devon lane recently.
>> They were the epitome of 'smug' - dressed in bloody silly lycra costumes
>> with daft pointed pixie helmets and wrap-around sunglasses as they
>> slowly rode two abreast up a hill, preventing anything from passing them.
>>
>> The emanations of self-righteous 'greenness' coming from these two gaily
>> coloured carnival performers was almost overpowering! - and if someone
>> finally lost their temper and drove over them and their bloody bicycles
>> it would be hard to condemn them for their actions.
>>
>
> You sound just like the caravanner's best friend, Jeremy Clarkson.
>
> Tony
Look, I'm all for live and let live, but let's face it, there are a lot of
cyclists out there who flout the law and give reasonable cyclists a bad
name.It is long past time they were made to pass a test, pay road tax and
insure themselves for at least third party.
--

Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:12:16 +0100 someone who may be "Robert
Peffers." <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Reading between your lines, and particularly your second paragraph, I
>> suspect that if you could have "squeezed past" you would have - even
>> though
>> that would have been unsafe. So, IMO the cyclists' are completely
>> vindicated.
>>
>Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.

Which law is that then? Feel free to post chapter and verse, so we
may check the veracity of your assertion. If you cannot do so then
we may laugh at you.

FYI someone claiming to be a driving instructor once came to
uk.rec.cycling and stated that there was a sign which indicates that
cyclists must use a cycle route. When this assertion was challenged
he was not able to produce chapter and verse, because he was
completely and utterly wrong.

>Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
>and it shows.

The man claiming to be a driving instructor posted something similar
and ended up looking foolish when he could not back up his
assertion.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Aug 16, 11:47 am, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Artleknock
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> > > Before I start a rant - I have been a cyclist all my life.
> > > On Sunday morning the 5th I was driving down the A1 about a couple of
> > > miles short of the first A1M after Scotch corner when I joined a long
> > > tail back of traffic. On finaly reaching the hold up it was a bloke on
> > > a bike, drop handle bars, crash hat, lycra budgie smugglers, the
> > > works, riding on the carriageway!! A bit further on there was a
> > > marshal at the next turn off. The idiots were doing time trials on a
> > > major trunk road on the same day that all the holiday makers were
> > > heading home from up north.
> >
> > 20mph safe stopping distance is 12 metres
> > 70mph safe stopping distance is 96 metres
> >
> > 20/70 x 96/12 = 16/7 so the road has over twice the capacity (that's
> > throughput, not parking space) at 20mph than it has at 70mph.
>
> Twice the capacity if both lanes are used, but I assume the cars stuck
> to the right hand lane, so about the same capacity, but still a valid
> point.

I should have said the /lane/ has over twice the capacity, on the
assumption that everyone in the nearside lane was doing 20mph and
everyone in the offside was doing 70mph

> I don't think the cyclists would be at all happy with cars
> filling the 1 minute gap between each cyclist.

When I was time trialling I always used to wish that motor vehicles
would give me less space, for a better tow.
>
> > 2 miles at 70mph takes 103 seconds
> > 2 miles at 20mph takes 360 seconds
> > so the most that anyone will be delayed is about 4 minutes. That's not
> > 4 minutes sat still in a traffic jam, just 4 minutes driving slowly.
>
> Where does 2 miles come from?

"a couple of miles short of the first A1M after Scotch corner" - I
assumed he was turning off there, but maybe not.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Simon D
[email protected]lid says...

> Personally, I believe that the days when major trunk roads were
> suitable for time trailling passed a long while ago. I was mainly a
> roadie (mass start road racer, for the uninitiated), but did ride time
> trials from time to time. I unwisely rode a series of three early
> evening ten mile time trials on the A12 at Colchester in 1991. (No
> events are held on the A12 now, I believe, and evening time trials were
> stopped very soon after these events.) I have rarely been so terrified.
>
Hah - lightweight roady only wants to mix it up with other bikes,
hardcore TTers do it with HGVs and WVM.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Robert Peffers.
[email protected] says...

> Because, you bloody idiot, the complaint is about the ones illegally using
> the roads.
>
What exactly do you think the cyclists were doing that was illegal?

 

[Clive George]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> FYI someone claiming to be a driving instructor once came to
> uk.rec.cycling and stated that there was a sign which indicates that
> cyclists must use a cycle route. When this assertion was challenged
> he was not able to produce chapter and verse, because he was
> completely and utterly wrong.
>
>>Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
>>and it shows.
>
> The man claiming to be a driving instructor posted something similar
> and ended up looking foolish when he could not back up his
> assertion.

Had an amusing incident with a driving instructor a couple of weeks ago who
claimed the speed limit applied to cycles, and pointed out the fact that he
was an instructor as a reason why he knew this. Unfortunately he wasn't
willing to continue the conversation, so I was unable to check if he knew
the tachograph laws for lorry drivers, etc since he claimed his teaching one
class of vehicle meant he knew the rules for all of them.

cheers,
clive

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:12:16 +0100 someone who may be "Robert
> Peffers." <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>> Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
>> and it shows.
>
> The man claiming to be a driving instructor posted something similar
> and ended up looking foolish when he could not back up his
> assertion.
>
>

It is of course true that all cyclists have passed all the tests
required by law to cycle on the roads ;-)

Tony

 

[wafflycat]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robert Peffers." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Because, you bloody idiot, the complaint is about the ones illegally
>> using the roads.
>
> Which ones would that be?
>
> clive

And timetrials do not normally require police permission - an organiser can
simply notify the police an event is due to take place. Indeed the CTT
helpfully produce a form specifically for organisers to use. It is the Road
Traffic Act that demands Police have at least 28 days clear notice of a time
trial; any less and then they can refuse permission to run the event or
impose special conditions, but as time trial organisers tend to be good at
organising events, it's usually a case of *notification* to the police
rather than *seeking permission*

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Robert Peffers.
[email protected] says...

> Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.

One idiot to another, eh?

> Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
> and it shows.
>
Has it ever occurred to you that many cyclists are actually licensed to
drive motor vehicles?

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 16, 4:36 pm, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't think the cyclists would be at all happy with cars
> > filling the 1 minute gap between each cyclist.
>
> When I was time trialling I always used to wish that motor vehicles
> would give me less space, for a better tow.

.... and presumably picked up speed a bit on the down slopes, slowed
down for you when it got steeper, overtook the bike in front when you
wanted to...
(aren't there rules about that, or is just about following other
competitors too closely?)

> > > 2 miles at 70mph takes 103 seconds
> > > 2 miles at 20mph takes 360 seconds
> > > so the most that anyone will be delayed is about 4 minutes. That's not
> > > 4 minutes sat still in a traffic jam, just 4 minutes driving slowly.
>
> > Where does 2 miles come from?
>
> "a couple of miles short of the first A1M after Scotch corner" - I
> assumed he was turning off there, but maybe not.

AIUI this was the event

http://www.cyclingtimetrials.org.uk/startsheets.asp?Month=&Page=1&ID=1037

which is on the A1 for 20 miles north then another 20 miles back
south.

As the OP only reports seeing a single cyclist I assume that was the
lantern rouge.

Rob

 

[Mary Fisher]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Robert Peffers." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Because, you bloody idiot, the complaint is about the ones illegally
>>> using the roads.
>>
>> Which ones would that be?
>>
>> clive
>
> And timetrials do not normally require police permission - an organiser
> can simply notify the police an event is due to take place. Indeed the CTT

I think that's a typo for CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club

Mary
once a Time Trialist who remembers marshalling and racing on the A1 in the
glory days before it was crowded with traffic. Why, there isn't even a
Dishforth roundabout to sit on in the semi-dark under a cape any more :-(

 

[wafflycat]

"Mary Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>

>>
>> And timetrials do not normally require police permission - an organiser
>> can simply notify the police an event is due to take place. Indeed the
>> CTT
>
> I think that's a typo for CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club
>
> Mary
> once a Time Trialist who remembers marshalling and racing on the A1 in the
> glory days before it was crowded with traffic. Why, there isn't even a
> Dishforth roundabout to sit on in the semi-dark under a cape any more :-(
>

No, it's the CTT: Cycling Time Trials, the governing body for time trials in
England & Wales.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the CTC: Cyclists' Touring Club

 

[Geoff Lane]

"Robert Peffers." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.
> Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving
> tests - and it shows.

The law says no such thing (writing as a cyclist who's passed a driving
test or two!) The Highway Code (rule 51) does say that cyclist should ride
in single file on narrow roads - but that's just advisory, written without
knowledge of the situation at the time, and does not have the weight of
law. That said, you should note that the Highway Code (rule 139) says that
you should give a cyclist as much room as you would a car when overtaking,
and rule 142 says should not overtake near the brow of a hill. Regular
cyclists know from experience that many motorists contravene those, and
other, rules and take appropriate actions to defend against such motorists.

Now Cyclecraft advocates positioning yourself to deter movements from
others which could increase risk to yourself. In this case AIUI that would
be taking the primary riding position to prevent the following motorist
from dangerously overtaking - which is effectively what the "outer" cyclist
was doing.

--
Geoff