The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?
Discussion
WJNB said:
If some prat or multiple of prats in Lycra insist on cycling one third out from the curb then that's fine by me, just be aware I use the remaining two thirds for overtaking. No way am I going to cross the centre line in the face of other traffic, nor queue behind a Lycra backside.
Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
I would have thought that policing dangerous driving was something they should be doing! Maybe if there were fewer people driving dangerously then they could spend more time doing other things...Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
julian64 said:
I would support any law to make cycling safer. However there is a very big difference protecting normal family cycling with a big speed differential where cars were cutting too close and the police need to have a word, and the lycra warriors on here who would simply bully traffic with the law.
Hopefully the police understand the difference. But I don't hold out much hope.
Of course......There is nothing in-between is there? Just 'family cycling' and 'lycra warriers'Hopefully the police understand the difference. But I don't hold out much hope.
Another inevitable generalisation.
I wonder where the problem lies
popeyewhite said:
Mave said:
popeyewhite said:
How about them? Are you suggesting these are the "compromise" you talked about that are built in for "all road user types"?
Yes.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Wrong. Up 25% year on year, sales of UK made bikes grew by 69% in 2014...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35101252
WJNB said:
If some prat or multiple of prats in Lycra insist on cycling one third out from the curb then that's fine by me, just be aware I use the remaining two thirds for overtaking. No way am I going to cross the centre line in the face of other traffic, nor queue behind a Lycra backside.
Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
Poor form, you failed to mention road tax. Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
SirSamuelBuca said:
Try passing a cyclist on the hagley road in rush hour. They make rush hour 10 x worse as you cannot get round them. The whole thing is moronic.
Really? Google suggests that average speed is ~ 17.5 mph, and photos suggest it's due to volume of traffic - is it really cyclists causing the problem?
about cyclists because there are more of them now.Mave said:
Your paraphrasing and subsequent quoting has lost some of the context of my original statement
Oh really?Mave said:
so to answer your question, a road passing under a low bridge is a compromise if tall vehicles can't pass under it, or if they need to straddle the centre of the road to pass under it.
But I thought you said roads had compromises in them to suit "all road users" and you gave a low bridge as an example? Now you say low bridges compromise tall vehicles - ok, so ....how do they compromise, for instance...tractors, or motorbikes, or cyclists?WJNB said:
If some prat or multiple of prats in Lycra insist on cycling one third out from the curb then that's fine by me, just be aware I use the remaining two thirds for overtaking. No way am I going to cross the centre line in the face of other traffic, nor queue behind a Lycra backside.
Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
...and this, folks, is the very definition of a "punishment pass".Good luck to Plod actually policing this, it's not as though they don't have too much to do as it is.
Doesn't matter WHAT you are overtaking, you should almost always be over the centre white line to do it. Passing a bike is no different to passing a car. It's an O-V-E-R-T-A-K-E, pure and simple. There are some exceptions, like extra-wide lanes, but even there your road position relative to that which you are overtaking should be the same.
"No way am I going to cross the centre line in the face of other traffic"...
You are a big chickeney chicken. What's the matter? You too scared to drive properly? Will those scary oncoming drivers shout "Boo!" at you?And as for the "roads are not designed for bicycles" mob? What a bunch of morons. I suggest you check the legal definition of a "ROAD". You will find that it includes both the carriageway AND the footway (where one is provided). "The roads" therefore, it is safe to assume, are designed with ALL road users in mind. Motor vehicles, pedal cycles, horses, AND EVEN PEDESTRIANS!!! If it were not the case, then we would have no footways included in the design of new roads.
popeyewhite said:
Mave said:
Your paraphrasing and subsequent quoting has lost some of the context of my original statement
Oh really?Mave said:
so to answer your question, a road passing under a low bridge is a compromise if tall vehicles can't pass under it, or if they need to straddle the centre of the road to pass under it.
But I thought you said roads had compromises in them to suit "all road users" and you gave a low bridge as an example? Now you say low bridges compromise tall vehicles - ok, so ....how do they compromise, for instance...tractors, or motorbikes, or cyclists?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff