Discussion
wolves_wanderer said:
SteveSteveson said:
Hol said:
Oh!! for a world where all cyclists and motorists at least attempted to indicate.
Not the same thing. Those rules you have quoted don't apply to sudden movement needed to avoid an obstacle. Do you expect all cars to indicate when swerving to avoid an animal or a pot hole? It's not telling you to indicate before you move in the road at all... Trying to apply Rule 103 to Rule 213 is just stupid.Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 12:06
Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
Edited by Hol on Friday 24th October 13:00
Urban Sports said:
This shouldn't be happening putting road tax paying motorists in harms way with this kind of stupidity, if they were taxed then issues like cyclist on cyclist attacks wouldn't happen and the roads would be a safer place.
Yes. Taxation has stopped all kinds of traffic issues. You barely see accidents, drink driving, speeding etc....There is all kinds of stupid being spoken in this thread.
ravon said:
While we are having a gripe, I live at a famous Surrey beauty spot frequented by cyclists, and I'm endlessly picking up empty "SIS" Energy Drinks sachets from my driveway. I realise that light weight is everything to cyclists, but please take your few grams of litter home with you ?
I agree 100%. Littering is completely unacceptable.ravon said:
While we are having a gripe, I live at a famous Surrey beauty spot frequented by cyclists, and I'm endlessly picking up empty "SIS" Energy Drinks sachets from my driveway. I realise that light weight is everything to cyclists, but please take your few grams of litter home with you ?
Pet hate. FWIW anyone who drops crap whilst in our group is kicked out. Re: Indicating.
You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
Hol said:
However:
Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
What on earth has that got to do with rule 213?Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
Surely if someone has time to see an obstacle in the road and indicate to pull round it you should also see that obstacle, anticipate that they are going to have to move round it, and not be overtaking as it is not safe?
"163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so."
ravon said:
While we are having a gripe, I live at a famous Surrey beauty spot frequented by cyclists, and I'm endlessly picking up empty "SIS" Energy Drinks sachets from my driveway. I realise that light weight is everything to cyclists, but please take your few grams of litter home with you ?
That is annoying, but to be fair, again, it's not a cyclist thing, its a selfish t
t thing. The roads of the UK are littered with empty McDonalds wrappers, and far to many times I have had lorry drivers chuck coffee out the window and people throw fag ends out when I have been on my motorbike.Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 13:16
SteveSteveson said:
Hol said:
However:
Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
What on earth has that got to do with rule 213?Sudden avoidance in an emergency and the rules that allow it - is NOT the same thing as seeing something in advance and being too complacent to bother looking to see if its safe to avoid and indicating your intent so that approaching vehicles can use their own mirrors/signals and plan to avoid you.
THAT is my point - you can make your own assumptions.
Surely if someone has time to see an obstacle in the road and indicate to pull round it you should also see that obstacle, anticipate that they are going to have to move round it, and not be overtaking as it is not safe?
"163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so."
Im sure in the real world of cylcing every manouvre 'may' be an emergency under rule 213??
Those man hole covers do have a habit of jumping out on you a split second before you need to swerve and avoid them (EVERY TIME).
v12Legs said:
Re: Indicating.
You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
If I am forced to swerve whilst driving it's my responsibility to ensure the maneuver doesn't affect other road users (swerving which which would causes a collision with an oncoming car for example). I fail to see why cyclists should act any differently. If they do not have the observational skills to spot a hazard far enough ahead of them that they can avoid it without affecting other road users then they are either cycling too fast for their abilities or they shouldn't be cycling at all. Like a car driver the cyclist always has the option of braking to avoid a hazard. You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
plasticpig said:
v12Legs said:
Re: Indicating.
You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
If I am forced to swerve whilst driving it's my responsibility to ensure the maneuver doesn't affect other road users (swerving which which would causes a collision with an oncoming car for example). I fail to see why cyclists should act any differently. If they do not have the observational skills to spot a hazard far enough ahead of them that they can avoid it without affecting other road users then they are either cycling too fast for their abilities or they shouldn't be cycling at all. Like a car driver the cyclist always has the option of braking to avoid a hazard. You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
WinstonWolf said:
If a driver does not have the observational skills to spot a hazard far enough ahead of them that they can avoid it without affecting other road users then they are either driving too fast for their abilities or they shouldn't be driving at all.
Well of course I thought that was obvious from my post.Hol said:
Its ok, really - if cyclists really don't like the 'nasty' rule and want to hide behind the 'nice' rule for your entire journey they should just come out and say so - so we can all move on and know where we all stand.
Im sure in the real world of cylcing every manouvre 'may' be an emergency under rule 213??
Those man hole covers do have a habit of jumping out on you a split second before you need to swerve and avoid them (EVERY TIME).
There is no such thing as "Nasty" and "nice" rules. The rules of the road are there so everyone is safe. Your just trying to apply a rule where it is not appropriate. Perhaps try watching the road ahead and respect other road users and you won't have the problems your having. Look at the road and you will be able to predict when other road users are going to have to do things. Cyclists and motorcyclists don't need to indicate to go round manhole covers.Im sure in the real world of cylcing every manouvre 'may' be an emergency under rule 213??
Those man hole covers do have a habit of jumping out on you a split second before you need to swerve and avoid them (EVERY TIME).
WinstonWolf said:
plasticpig said:
v12Legs said:
Re: Indicating.
You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
If I am forced to swerve whilst driving it's my responsibility to ensure the maneuver doesn't affect other road users (swerving which which would causes a collision with an oncoming car for example). I fail to see why cyclists should act any differently. If they do not have the observational skills to spot a hazard far enough ahead of them that they can avoid it without affecting other road users then they are either cycling too fast for their abilities or they shouldn't be cycling at all. Like a car driver the cyclist always has the option of braking to avoid a hazard. You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
All I ever hear in these threads are cyclists moaning about the state of the roads, car drivers, cycle lanes, filtering, HGV drivers etc. But the fact is no one is forcing you to ride a bike. Suck it up or take a bus.
Diderot said:
And if a cyclist doesn't have the observational skills or intelligence to avoid getting crushed to death by merrily filtering up the left of HGVs, busses and coaches, then they should not be cycling at all.
All I ever hear in these threads are cyclists moaning about the state of the roads, car drivers, cycle lanes, filtering, HGV drivers etc. But the fact is no one is forcing you to ride a bike. Suck it up or take a bus.
All I hear is car drivers complaining about other road users, pot holes, the price of petrol. Suck it up or take a bus.All I ever hear in these threads are cyclists moaning about the state of the roads, car drivers, cycle lanes, filtering, HGV drivers etc. But the fact is no one is forcing you to ride a bike. Suck it up or take a bus.
No one was talking about going up the inside of an HGV. This was about people not giving enough room when overtaking or getting annoyed that sometimes cyclists need to go round lumps bumps and holes in the road.
plasticpig said:
If I am forced to swerve whilst driving it's my responsibility to ensure the maneuver doesn't affect other road users (swerving which which would causes a collision with an oncoming car for example).
Presumably in your example the oncoming car is in a different lane? If you had to change positions within your own lane to avoid a pothole, would consider it necessary to indicate?SteveSteveson said:
Cyclists and motorcyclists don't need to indicate to go round manhole covers.
At the end of the day: Is this your point - based on that rule?AND, if we accept that (for the moment)
When should cyclists indicate?
Im happy if some of your friends want to chip in here, as I think this is an important point.
Edited by Hol on Friday 24th October 13:53
Hol said:
At the end of the day: Is this your point - based on that rule?
AND, if we accept that (for the moment)
When should cyclists indicate?
Im happy if some of your friends want to chip in here, as I think this is an important point.
No, my point is your talking rubbish to justify not giving other road users enough room (whatever their transport). The rules are clear, designed to ensure everyone is safe, and people like you are a danger to all of us.AND, if we accept that (for the moment)
When should cyclists indicate?
Im happy if some of your friends want to chip in here, as I think this is an important point.
At the same time as anyone else. Do you indicate when you move in the road to avoid a pot hole?
Edited by SteveSteveson on Friday 24th October 14:00
Diderot said:
WinstonWolf said:
plasticpig said:
v12Legs said:
Re: Indicating.
You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
If I am forced to swerve whilst driving it's my responsibility to ensure the maneuver doesn't affect other road users (swerving which which would causes a collision with an oncoming car for example). I fail to see why cyclists should act any differently. If they do not have the observational skills to spot a hazard far enough ahead of them that they can avoid it without affecting other road users then they are either cycling too fast for their abilities or they shouldn't be cycling at all. Like a car driver the cyclist always has the option of braking to avoid a hazard. You wouldn't expect a car driver to indicate if they were manoeuvring in the same lane (to avoid a pothole for example), so why expect a cyclist to indicate when swerving, within the same lane, to avoid a pothole?
They are probably concentrating quite hard on maintaining control.
Just assume that a cyclist may have to suddenly swerve at any moment, and make sure you overtake with enough room for them to be able to do that without colliding with your car. Easy.
All I ever hear in these threads are cyclists moaning about the state of the roads, car drivers, cycle lanes, filtering, HGV drivers etc. But the fact is no one is forcing you to ride a bike. Suck it up or take a bus.
Diderot said:
All I ever hear in these threads are cyclists moaning about the state of the roads, car drivers, cycle lanes, filtering, HGV drivers etc. But the fact is no one is forcing you to ride a bike. Suck it up or take a bus.
Of course you never moan about the state of the roads, or any other form of traffic. Ever.Do you have a bus pass?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff