Turning right....whose right of way?
Discussion
riding along a 2-lane wide 40mph limit road, I was in the left lane (well, cycle lane at the far left) but up ahead I wanted to turn right. Indicated as such and after 4-5 secs I look over my back and don't see a car behind for a little way (a good 5+secs at 40mph) so I gradually creep right, whilst occasionally looking over my shoulder. Car then beeps their horn and the woman driving starts shouting some expletives and that she'd happily ram me off the road if I carried on moving right and that I'm a prick etc etc.
Now, if turning right on a single carriageway, it's clearly my right of way (you wouldn't overtake a car who is indicating to turn right) yet if a car is indicating right on a 2 lane wide, it is the car overtaking who has right of way....But if you're cycling along a busy road (which this certainly can be) if you're cycling at 20mph and traffic is doing 40mph you'd literally never be able to move right.
Who has the right of way? I know that if a cyclist is indicating right and I'm in the car I'll NEVER go to overtake them in case they do suddenly swerve over.
Cheers
Now, if turning right on a single carriageway, it's clearly my right of way (you wouldn't overtake a car who is indicating to turn right) yet if a car is indicating right on a 2 lane wide, it is the car overtaking who has right of way....But if you're cycling along a busy road (which this certainly can be) if you're cycling at 20mph and traffic is doing 40mph you'd literally never be able to move right.
Who has the right of way? I know that if a cyclist is indicating right and I'm in the car I'll NEVER go to overtake them in case they do suddenly swerve over.
Cheers
I think you know the answer to this one. She's being a knobjockey.
I can pretty much guarantee she sped up just so that she could get annoyed. I also imagine she's the sort of person who will happily stop in a "keep clear" to stop people "pushing in" from side turnings. She was in a Zafira, wasn't she, or a Quashquai. Or maybe a Jizz.
What does she want you to do, teleport across the road!?
I had a chap a few weeks back - in a Jizz as it happens - who was determined to overtake me despite the fact I was on a long slightly downhill 30mph section, where bikes can easily keep up with traffic. He nailed it up to 40 to get past, then hit the brakes when he realised he was speeding, with the result that I caught him up again. Sat behind him as he gradually slowed to 29-28-27-26. Then he started indicating to turn right and slowing further, so I did a quick lifesaver and passed him on the LHS. He leaned on the horn! It did make me wonder if I'd actually screwed something up by passing him on the inside, but I'm 99% sure that's not the case. He'd pass a bike on the left if the bike was waiting to turn right, after all.
I can pretty much guarantee she sped up just so that she could get annoyed. I also imagine she's the sort of person who will happily stop in a "keep clear" to stop people "pushing in" from side turnings. She was in a Zafira, wasn't she, or a Quashquai. Or maybe a Jizz.
What does she want you to do, teleport across the road!?
I had a chap a few weeks back - in a Jizz as it happens - who was determined to overtake me despite the fact I was on a long slightly downhill 30mph section, where bikes can easily keep up with traffic. He nailed it up to 40 to get past, then hit the brakes when he realised he was speeding, with the result that I caught him up again. Sat behind him as he gradually slowed to 29-28-27-26. Then he started indicating to turn right and slowing further, so I did a quick lifesaver and passed him on the LHS. He leaned on the horn! It did make me wonder if I'd actually screwed something up by passing him on the inside, but I'm 99% sure that's not the case. He'd pass a bike on the left if the bike was waiting to turn right, after all.
creeping right wouldn't help imo
Signal where it will inform other road users of your intention and, once you can see the road to be clear, you are best off getting over and taking the position. Creeping, rather than assertively taking the position allowed her to think she had an opportunity to pass you / that you were letting her pass
but the driver concerned is missing the point: she should treat vulnerable road users as such and should have given you the time and space you needed to complete the turn safely
Signal where it will inform other road users of your intention and, once you can see the road to be clear, you are best off getting over and taking the position. Creeping, rather than assertively taking the position allowed her to think she had an opportunity to pass you / that you were letting her pass
but the driver concerned is missing the point: she should treat vulnerable road users as such and should have given you the time and space you needed to complete the turn safely
Usget- had exactly the same on my ride today! 1.5 lane wide country lane, slight downhill, 30mph limit. Some daft bint in a Picasso started getting closer and closer despite my gps saying I was doing 29.9mph. I pointed at a speed limit sign and this obviously lit the tough paper as she then forced her way past hurling abuse at me, and then brake tested me! Ffs.
What was even more stupid is that half a mile down the road there are speed bumps and I caught her up, as by pre hopping the bumps you don't have to slow down at all on a bike! I could have passed her but thought better of it, she probably would have rammed me or something so let it be.
What was even more stupid is that half a mile down the road there are speed bumps and I caught her up, as by pre hopping the bumps you don't have to slow down at all on a bike! I could have passed her but thought better of it, she probably would have rammed me or something so let it be.
Thanks everyone, pretty much confirmed my thinking to be honest but wanted to make sure.
I say "creeping" across the road, it wasn't as if I was taking 30 seconds to do it, I'd say around 5 seconds, give or take. I generally prefer that because I am always weary that if you make sudden movements, someone might not anticipate it, and that could end badly!
I say "creeping" across the road, it wasn't as if I was taking 30 seconds to do it, I'd say around 5 seconds, give or take. I generally prefer that because I am always weary that if you make sudden movements, someone might not anticipate it, and that could end badly!
My thoughts are a bit different.......
Its not a "right of way" but who has "priority". Its not a right of way (thats something entirely different).
Priority is something which is given, ie you can give priority but not take it.
A cyclist who is convinced they have "right of way" vs a car driver who is convinced they have "right of way". I personally think that both parties are responsible, after all they both thought they had "right of way" and were both "right" at the time.
imo the car driver and the cyclist are doing the exact same thing, just one of them is made of metal and is cocooned from the outside world and one of them is very fragile and easily hurt.
Whats the worse that could happen?
Personally if i have not been given priority then i slow down, stop, wait, turn round up the road etc. Who cares about who was right, wrong or somewhere inbetween when its much easier to avoid it and the impending hospital visit.
Its not a "right of way" but who has "priority". Its not a right of way (thats something entirely different).
Priority is something which is given, ie you can give priority but not take it.
A cyclist who is convinced they have "right of way" vs a car driver who is convinced they have "right of way". I personally think that both parties are responsible, after all they both thought they had "right of way" and were both "right" at the time.
imo the car driver and the cyclist are doing the exact same thing, just one of them is made of metal and is cocooned from the outside world and one of them is very fragile and easily hurt.
Whats the worse that could happen?
Personally if i have not been given priority then i slow down, stop, wait, turn round up the road etc. Who cares about who was right, wrong or somewhere inbetween when its much easier to avoid it and the impending hospital visit.
james7 said:
My thoughts are a bit different.......
Its not a "right of way" but who has "priority". Its not a right of way (thats something entirely different).
Priority is something which is given, ie you can give priority but not take it.
A cyclist who is convinced they have "right of way" vs a car driver who is convinced they have "right of way". I personally think that both parties are responsible, after all they both thought they had "right of way" and were both "right" at the time.
imo the car driver and the cyclist are doing the exact same thing, just one of them is made of metal and is cocooned from the outside world and one of them is very fragile and easily hurt.
Whats the worse that could happen?
Personally if i have not been given priority then i slow down, stop, wait, turn round up the road etc. Who cares about who was right, wrong or somewhere inbetween when its much easier to avoid it and the impending hospital visit.
Sorry, but that's just the sort of rubbish that makes drivers think they have an absolute right to take priority over other road users, frequently leading to people overtaking a cyclist who is already well over to the right and signalling to turn. Its not a "right of way" but who has "priority". Its not a right of way (thats something entirely different).
Priority is something which is given, ie you can give priority but not take it.
A cyclist who is convinced they have "right of way" vs a car driver who is convinced they have "right of way". I personally think that both parties are responsible, after all they both thought they had "right of way" and were both "right" at the time.
imo the car driver and the cyclist are doing the exact same thing, just one of them is made of metal and is cocooned from the outside world and one of them is very fragile and easily hurt.
Whats the worse that could happen?
Personally if i have not been given priority then i slow down, stop, wait, turn round up the road etc. Who cares about who was right, wrong or somewhere inbetween when its much easier to avoid it and the impending hospital visit.
Worst one I had was here...
...where I was over to the right within the centre hatched area well into my right turn. I was harassed by a Mockney in a white Transit van who leaned heavily on the horn, overtook me on the right, forcing oncoming traffic to slow, while yelling unintelligible abuse (or maybe driving tips?). He then proceeded to turn left at that junction not a hundred yards away.
If I get overtaken while signalling and positioned for a right turn these days, my open handed indication simply morphs into a raised middle finger which follows the driver as they go past. The thing with these kind of drivers is that they'd NEVER consider behaving like that with another driver. Even when the car ahead fails to indicate, the most you'll see/hear from the car behind is a toot of the horn or some rolled eyes. But apparently we cyclists are "fair game", even when we're signalling and positioned correctly, and every traffic jam ever (even those daily ones on the M25) has a selfish c
t on a bicycle deliberately blocking the road at the head of it. This sort of thing will happen until someone dispels this myth that a bicycle's place is locked in the shed, or at least confined to the gutters and left hand verge. It's always happened, and there'll always be someone willing to make it happen again. In fact, I predict that in the forthcoming age of autonomous electric vehicles, there will still be retards hanging out of their vehicle windows abusing cyclists. It's just the way it is, sadly...[quote=yellowjack]
Sorry, but that's just the sort of rubbish that makes drivers think they have an absolute right to take priority over other road users, frequently leading to people overtaking a cyclist who is already well over to the right and signalling to turn.
[quote]
To be fair 5 seconds is not enough room to pull in front of a car and expect them to get out of your way.
Making another road user change direction, slow down, take evasive action by pulling into their path is careless driving, if you are in a car. Which is what the op said he did. But its ok as he is on a bike............
He was not already well over to the right as you have alluded to in your unrelated rant, perhaps try reading the op rather than jumping to conclusions, but thanks for sharing :-)
Sorry, but that's just the sort of rubbish that makes drivers think they have an absolute right to take priority over other road users, frequently leading to people overtaking a cyclist who is already well over to the right and signalling to turn.
[quote]
To be fair 5 seconds is not enough room to pull in front of a car and expect them to get out of your way.
Making another road user change direction, slow down, take evasive action by pulling into their path is careless driving, if you are in a car. Which is what the op said he did. But its ok as he is on a bike............
He was not already well over to the right as you have alluded to in your unrelated rant, perhaps try reading the op rather than jumping to conclusions, but thanks for sharing :-)
E65Ross said:
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I indicated and held my arm whilst looking over my right shoulder, I held my arm out for a good 5+ seconds and THEN moved over, and that move took another 5 seconds or so.
I guess another way to look at it would be a bit like joining a motorway on a slip road, but not speeding up to the speed of the rest of the traffic. Would you have done the same thing in front of a lorry?
It sounds like a bit of frustration creeping in with.... "But if you're cycling along a busy road (which this certainly can be) if you're cycling at 20mph and traffic is doing 40mph you'd literally never be able to move right." which is totally understandable.
However there are other options like slowing down, stopping, turning round, alter route etc. There are places where i do this in my car on a regular basis, as well as on a bike. If it prevents an incident like you had then to my mind its well worth doing. Let alone risking an accident.
The car driver should have been more patient without a doubt. But that cuts both ways, could you have been more patient too?
james7 said:
I guess another way to look at it would be a bit like joining a motorway on a slip road, but not speeding up to the speed of the rest of the traffic.
Would you have done the same thing in front of a lorry?
It sounds like a bit of frustration creeping in with.... "But if you're cycling along a busy road (which this certainly can be) if you're cycling at 20mph and traffic is doing 40mph you'd literally never be able to move right." which is totally understandable.
However there are other options like slowing down, stopping, turning round, alter route etc. There are places where i do this in my car on a regular basis, as well as on a bike. If it prevents an incident like you had then to my mind its well worth doing. Let alone risking an accident.
The car driver should have been more patient without a doubt. But that cuts both ways, could you have been more patient too?
This is the sort of bone-headed thinking that causes cyclists to "take the lane" and hold a more central position all of the time.Would you have done the same thing in front of a lorry?
It sounds like a bit of frustration creeping in with.... "But if you're cycling along a busy road (which this certainly can be) if you're cycling at 20mph and traffic is doing 40mph you'd literally never be able to move right." which is totally understandable.
However there are other options like slowing down, stopping, turning round, alter route etc. There are places where i do this in my car on a regular basis, as well as on a bike. If it prevents an incident like you had then to my mind its well worth doing. Let alone risking an accident.
The car driver should have been more patient without a doubt. But that cuts both ways, could you have been more patient too?
It's absolutely NOTHING like joining a motorway from a slip road. In that case, there's a dotted line that INSTRUCTS the joiner to cede priority to traffic already in lane 1 (and as an aside, that's a rule that is broken literally millions of times a day, along with speed limits, give way lines, and red traffic lights by all manner of road users).
We're talking here about turning right when you're already on the carriageway, in the lane. You quite literally ARE TRAFFIC, not "joining traffic". No-one in their right mind would overtake the car ahead of them while it was turning right, so why do it to a cyclist? If the answer is "because he's smaller, softer, and more vulnerable than me" then does that make might right? And if so, does that mean a heavyweight boxer on a bike gets right of way/priority over a ballet dancer in a car just because he can punch the dancer's lights out? Is that how road manners work now?
I get it. You're stupid. Too stupid to understand that a car indicating right and altering it's road position to turn right ahead of you is EXACTLY THE SAME as a cyclist doing the same. You need to treat all road users as your equal. And you need to respect them and their right to use the roads. If it were in the public interest, HM Government would, by now, have forced cyclists to carry number plates, take tests, and have compulsory insurance. It isn't in the public interest, so they don't.
And anyway. Bicycles were classified as carriages decades before motor cars were, and therefore "we were here first", so yah boo snubs to you! It's also true that the proper surfacing of Britain's roads was largely due to campaigning by cyclists in those far off early days. Furthermore, the statement oft relied upon to pillory cyclists that "the roads weren't designed for bicycles" is patently true, but incomplete. It is in fact true to say that the majority of Britain's road network wasn't actually designed at all. It just happened. Medieval towns and cities only have enough space for cars because they evolved with horses and carts in mind, not because William The b
d sailed over here to topple Harold with a town planning guide tucked behind his breastplate. Those wiggly roads that wander around all over the countryside hugging contour lines? They weren't designed either, it's just that they happened to be the easiest, most weather-resistant routes between farms and villages and the markets where they sold their produce. If they'd been "designed" our roads would be straight, and well surfaced from their inception, like Roman roads were. And our cities would look far more like Paris or New York than London, with far more space between buildings, all of which would be arranged on a nice, logical, easy -to-use grid system. All seemingly irrelevant to turning right on the sub standard roads we're left to muddle along with, granted, but all part of the bigger picture nonetheless.While idiots attempt to cram more and more cars onto the roads, then simultaneously b
h that bicycles are the root cause of traffic jams, nothing will get better. I own a bicycle (or 8) and a car. If I need to visit a shop in town that does not require the carrying capacity of a car to ship goods home, then I cycle. Most of the route is away from roads, and when I get there I don't need a parking space. All this BENEFITS drivers directly. There's one less car in the queues for roundabouts and traffic lights, the air is one car's worth of pollution cleaner, and there's an extra parking space outside the shops. Yet it's not massively unusual to see drivers close-passing or blatantly abusing cyclists. Drive me, and many others, who commute and run errands on our bikes off them and into cars, and try to argue that traffic queues will be lessened, and that the air will be clearer, and that traffic will flow more smoothly. You might as well argue that the moon is made of cheese. But hey? I'm just a dumb-arsed "militant whinging cyclist" and my opinion on anything from Brexit to the best options to spec on a new M3 are tainted and irrelevant. Ultimately your opinion on me couldn't interest me any less. I'm not "a Cyclist". I'm not "a Driver". I'm not "a Pedestrian", as if any of those groups can exist in isolation. I'm just a human being who happens to become "a Road User" when he leaves his own property. All road users have legal rights, obligations, and protections, and you'd do well to remember that.
Reminds me of cycling with a rucksack full of garden waste to my local recycling centre. I got abused for "jumping the queue" by some gobs
te in an estate car. When I pointed out that the queue wasn't, in fact, for the use of the green waste skip, but for one of the parking spaces in front of it, the "does not compute" expression on his face was a picture. I was finished and on my way home before he got three car lengths up the road, all the while idling his car to choke the driver behind, while breathing deeply on the exhaust emissions of the car in front. Dude? If you've got two hours spare to sit breathing in someone else's exhaust fumes while you boil in a hot car, crack on. I'd rather make three trips on a bike than one in a car at peak times in my local council tip, but like I say, if you're a bit dim, just turn up at peak times and keep on complaining that there's too much traffic, while denying to yourself that you're part of the problem. In the words of Forrest Gump... "stupid is as stupid does" 
yellowjack said:
This is the sort of bone-headed thinking that causes cyclists to "take the lane" and hold a more central position all of the time.
It's absolutely NOTHING like joining a motorway from a slip road. In that case, there's a dotted line that INSTRUCTS the joiner to cede priority to traffic already in lane 1 (and as an aside, that's a rule that is broken literally millions of times a day, along with speed limits, give way lines, and red traffic lights by all manner of road users).
We're talking here about turning right when you're already on the carriageway, in the lane. You quite literally ARE TRAFFIC, not "joining traffic". No-one in their right mind would overtake the car ahead of them while it was turning right, so why do it to a cyclist? If the answer is "because he's smaller, softer, and more vulnerable than me" then does that make might right? And if so, does that mean a heavyweight boxer on a bike gets right of way/priority over a ballet dancer in a car just because he can punch the dancer's lights out? Is that how road manners work now?
I get it. You're stupid. Too stupid to understand that a car indicating right and altering it's road position to turn right ahead of you is EXACTLY THE SAME as a cyclist doing the same. You need to treat all road users as your equal. And you need to respect them and their right to use the roads. If it were in the public interest, HM Government would, by now, have forced cyclists to carry number plates, take tests, and have compulsory insurance. It isn't in the public interest, so they don't.
And anyway. Bicycles were classified as carriages decades before motor cars were, and therefore "we were here first", so yah boo snubs to you! It's also true that the proper surfacing of Britain's roads was largely due to campaigning by cyclists in those far off early days. Furthermore, the statement oft relied upon to pillory cyclists that "the roads weren't designed for bicycles" is patently true, but incomplete. It is in fact true to say that the majority of Britain's road network wasn't actually designed at all. It just happened. Medieval towns and cities only have enough space for cars because they evolved with horses and carts in mind, not because William The bd sailed over here to topple Harold with a town planning guide tucked behind his breastplate. Those wiggly roads that wander around all over the countryside hugging contour lines? They weren't designed either, it's just that they happened to be the easiest, most weather-resistant routes between farms and villages and the markets where they sold their produce. If they'd been "designed" our roads would be straight, and well surfaced from their inception, like Roman roads were. And our cities would look far more like Paris or New York than London, with far more space between buildings, all of which would be arranged on a nice, logical, easy -to-use grid system. All seemingly irrelevant to turning right on the sub standard roads we're left to muddle along with, granted, but all part of the bigger picture nonetheless.
While idiots attempt to cram more and more cars onto the roads, then simultaneously bh that bicycles are the root cause of traffic jams, nothing will get better. I own a bicycle (or 8) and a car. If I need to visit a shop in town that does not require the carrying capacity of a car to ship goods home, then I cycle. Most of the route is away from roads, and when I get there I don't need a parking space. All this BENEFITS drivers directly. There's one less car in the queues for roundabouts and traffic lights, the air is one car's worth of pollution cleaner, and there's an extra parking space outside the shops. Yet it's not massively unusual to see drivers close-passing or blatantly abusing cyclists. Drive me, and many others, who commute and run errands on our bikes off them and into cars, and try to argue that traffic queues will be lessened, and that the air will be clearer, and that traffic will flow more smoothly. You might as well argue that the moon is made of cheese. But hey? I'm just a dumb-arsed "militant whinging cyclist" and my opinion on anything from Brexit to the best options to spec on a new M3 are tainted and irrelevant.
Ultimately your opinion on me couldn't interest me any less. I'm not "a Cyclist". I'm not "a Driver". I'm not "a Pedestrian", as if any of those groups can exist in isolation. I'm just a human being who happens to become "a Road User" when he leaves his own property. All road users have legal rights, obligations, and protections, and you'd do well to remember that.
Reminds me of cycling with a rucksack full of garden waste to my local recycling centre. I got abused for "jumping the queue" by some gobste in an estate car. When I pointed out that the queue wasn't, in fact, for the use of the green waste skip, but for one of the parking spaces in front of it, the "does not compute" expression on his face was a picture. I was finished and on my way home before he got three car lengths up the road, all the while idling his car to choke the driver behind, while breathing deeply on the exhaust emissions of the car in front. Dude? If you've got two hours spare to sit breathing in someone else's exhaust fumes while you boil in a hot car, crack on. I'd rather make three trips on a bike than one in a car at peak times in my local council tip, but like I say, if you're a bit dim, just turn up at peak times and keep on complaining that there's too much traffic, while denying to yourself that you're part of the problem. In the words of Forrest Gump... "stupid is as stupid does"
Why do you always resort to making things up, bizarre knee jerk reactions and throwing insults around?It's absolutely NOTHING like joining a motorway from a slip road. In that case, there's a dotted line that INSTRUCTS the joiner to cede priority to traffic already in lane 1 (and as an aside, that's a rule that is broken literally millions of times a day, along with speed limits, give way lines, and red traffic lights by all manner of road users).
We're talking here about turning right when you're already on the carriageway, in the lane. You quite literally ARE TRAFFIC, not "joining traffic". No-one in their right mind would overtake the car ahead of them while it was turning right, so why do it to a cyclist? If the answer is "because he's smaller, softer, and more vulnerable than me" then does that make might right? And if so, does that mean a heavyweight boxer on a bike gets right of way/priority over a ballet dancer in a car just because he can punch the dancer's lights out? Is that how road manners work now?
I get it. You're stupid. Too stupid to understand that a car indicating right and altering it's road position to turn right ahead of you is EXACTLY THE SAME as a cyclist doing the same. You need to treat all road users as your equal. And you need to respect them and their right to use the roads. If it were in the public interest, HM Government would, by now, have forced cyclists to carry number plates, take tests, and have compulsory insurance. It isn't in the public interest, so they don't.
And anyway. Bicycles were classified as carriages decades before motor cars were, and therefore "we were here first", so yah boo snubs to you! It's also true that the proper surfacing of Britain's roads was largely due to campaigning by cyclists in those far off early days. Furthermore, the statement oft relied upon to pillory cyclists that "the roads weren't designed for bicycles" is patently true, but incomplete. It is in fact true to say that the majority of Britain's road network wasn't actually designed at all. It just happened. Medieval towns and cities only have enough space for cars because they evolved with horses and carts in mind, not because William The b
d sailed over here to topple Harold with a town planning guide tucked behind his breastplate. Those wiggly roads that wander around all over the countryside hugging contour lines? They weren't designed either, it's just that they happened to be the easiest, most weather-resistant routes between farms and villages and the markets where they sold their produce. If they'd been "designed" our roads would be straight, and well surfaced from their inception, like Roman roads were. And our cities would look far more like Paris or New York than London, with far more space between buildings, all of which would be arranged on a nice, logical, easy -to-use grid system. All seemingly irrelevant to turning right on the sub standard roads we're left to muddle along with, granted, but all part of the bigger picture nonetheless.While idiots attempt to cram more and more cars onto the roads, then simultaneously b
h that bicycles are the root cause of traffic jams, nothing will get better. I own a bicycle (or 8) and a car. If I need to visit a shop in town that does not require the carrying capacity of a car to ship goods home, then I cycle. Most of the route is away from roads, and when I get there I don't need a parking space. All this BENEFITS drivers directly. There's one less car in the queues for roundabouts and traffic lights, the air is one car's worth of pollution cleaner, and there's an extra parking space outside the shops. Yet it's not massively unusual to see drivers close-passing or blatantly abusing cyclists. Drive me, and many others, who commute and run errands on our bikes off them and into cars, and try to argue that traffic queues will be lessened, and that the air will be clearer, and that traffic will flow more smoothly. You might as well argue that the moon is made of cheese. But hey? I'm just a dumb-arsed "militant whinging cyclist" and my opinion on anything from Brexit to the best options to spec on a new M3 are tainted and irrelevant. Ultimately your opinion on me couldn't interest me any less. I'm not "a Cyclist". I'm not "a Driver". I'm not "a Pedestrian", as if any of those groups can exist in isolation. I'm just a human being who happens to become "a Road User" when he leaves his own property. All road users have legal rights, obligations, and protections, and you'd do well to remember that.
Reminds me of cycling with a rucksack full of garden waste to my local recycling centre. I got abused for "jumping the queue" by some gobs
te in an estate car. When I pointed out that the queue wasn't, in fact, for the use of the green waste skip, but for one of the parking spaces in front of it, the "does not compute" expression on his face was a picture. I was finished and on my way home before he got three car lengths up the road, all the while idling his car to choke the driver behind, while breathing deeply on the exhaust emissions of the car in front. Dude? If you've got two hours spare to sit breathing in someone else's exhaust fumes while you boil in a hot car, crack on. I'd rather make three trips on a bike than one in a car at peak times in my local council tip, but like I say, if you're a bit dim, just turn up at peak times and keep on complaining that there's too much traffic, while denying to yourself that you're part of the problem. In the words of Forrest Gump... "stupid is as stupid does" Out of interest are you "on the spectrum"? If you have not been tested it might be worth getting tested and perhaps get some help.
Usget said:
And what if he were? Is that a bad thing in your eyes then?
I'd probably think quite carefully before responding.
Why would it be a bad thing in my eyes?I'd probably think quite carefully before responding.
Why would i need to think carefully?
Its a bad thing for him if he has all that anger running round his head and no way to deal with it properly. Perhaps he needs help?
My police driving manual does say to make all maneuvers deliberate and decisive, that was in the 1950s but I think it is still a good idea.
My strategy is to check there is enough time to make the maneuver , indicate right and then move quickly to the crown of the road before anyone behind can reach me, that way I have good visibility of oncoming traffic and also I am now in a position where I am less likely to be hit from behind as traffic from the rear is unlikely to be encroaching on the crown of the road.
As road users we are constantly making risk assessments and that should always be the final arbiter that trumps rights and everything else, for example there is a right turn into a lane I make off the A38 south of Gloucester that is just after a slight rise in the road, the traffic is always at 60mph in each direction , the road is straight so driver attention is reduced, so I pull onto the grass verge on the left and cross the road as a pedestrian, the time lost is a matter of seconds.
My strategy is to check there is enough time to make the maneuver , indicate right and then move quickly to the crown of the road before anyone behind can reach me, that way I have good visibility of oncoming traffic and also I am now in a position where I am less likely to be hit from behind as traffic from the rear is unlikely to be encroaching on the crown of the road.
As road users we are constantly making risk assessments and that should always be the final arbiter that trumps rights and everything else, for example there is a right turn into a lane I make off the A38 south of Gloucester that is just after a slight rise in the road, the traffic is always at 60mph in each direction , the road is straight so driver attention is reduced, so I pull onto the grass verge on the left and cross the road as a pedestrian, the time lost is a matter of seconds.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff