Thoughtful non-cyclist of the day

[TMS320]

Today this cyclist was in my car because it was suitable for the journey
in hand - another errand today was suitable for the bike. I was in a
stop start queue when a non-cylist in a panzer suddenly barged out of a
driveway causing a woman with a pushchair to take a step back and then
blocked the pavement. Luckily it wasn't an elderly pedestrian that could
have fallen backwards - like my mother-in-law a few years ago. (Oh, hang
on, it is supposed to be impossible for licenced, registered, taxed and
insured non-cyclists to do this. But if it turns out to be not
impossible, being licenced, registered, taxed and insured somehow makes
it alright.)

Anyway, rather than opening a gap to let the non-cyclist out, as usual
courtesy in a queue, this cyclist moved forward with the queue to block
her way. I felt no need to use my horn to scream at the non-cyclist,
because the ears of the woman and child were not protected by layers of
German steel andinsulation. Said non-cyclist then reversed back to let
the woman past.

It's always good to upset a non-cyclist without consuming any of my own
time over it.

[JNugent]

Vehicles entering and exiting driveways have priority* over traffic
crossing the entrances to those driveways.

You knew that but chose to ignore it when making up your story.

[* Those moving in and out of driveways nevertheless usually choose not
to assert their priority, but that does not diminish their right to do
so if they feel like.]

[TMS320]

On 04/05/18 23:12, JNugent wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 22:01, TMS320 wrote:
>> Today this cyclist was in my car because it was suitable for the
>> journey in hand - another errand today was suitable for the bike. I
>> was in a stop start queue when a non-cylist in a panzer suddenly
>> barged out of a driveway causing a woman with a pushchair to take a
>> step back and then blocked the pavement. Luckily it wasn't an elderly
>> pedestrian that could have fallen backwards - like my mother-in-law a
>> few years ago. (Oh, hang on, it is supposed to be impossible for
>> licenced, registered, taxed and insured non-cyclists to do this. But
>> if it turns out to be not impossible, being licenced, registered,
>> taxed and insured somehow makes it alright.)
>>
>> Anyway, rather than opening a gap to let the non-cyclist out, as usual
>> courtesy in a queue, this cyclist moved forward with the queue to
>> block her way. I felt no need to use my horn to scream at the
>> non-cyclist, because the ears of the woman and child were not
>> protected by layers of German steel andinsulation. Said non-cyclist
>> then reversed back to let the woman past.
>>
>> It's always good to upset a non-cyclist without consuming any of my
>> own time over it.
>
> Vehicles entering and exiting driveways have priority* over traffic
> crossing the entrances to those driveways.

Rubbish.

> You knew that but chose to ignore it when making up your story.

It is a true story.

[JNugent]

Don't be stupid (assuming you can help it).

You know as well as everyone else that cyclists using footway cycling
facilities are under a duty to give way to proper traffic at every
driveway entrance. This is often given as one of the reasons for
preferring the carriageway.

>> You knew that but chose to ignore it when making up your story.

> It is a true story.

Yeah, right.

[TMS320]

Nobody was riding a bike on the footway. Which bit of "causing a woman
with a pushchair to take a step back" did you fail to comprehend?

>>> You knew that but chose to ignore it when making up your story.
>
>> It is a true story.
>
> Yeah, right.

So I was right, drivers can do no wrong in your eyes.

[JNugent]

That does not matter. The fact that cyclists are under a duty to give
way at such locations is merely an indication that all users of the
route are under the same obligation. The rules are not different for
cyclists (though cyclists often behave as though they are).

> Which bit of "causing a woman
> with a pushchair to take a step back" did you fail to comprehend?

That happens every day. Every minute, in fact, when pedestrians fail to
recognise priority of other modes (in certain situations). I've done it
myself as a pedestrian. So have you. And I've seen countless examples of
adults pushing prams, etc, where they push the pram out into the
carriageway whilst waiting for passing traffic to... er... pass. People
do the daftest things Sometimes it's becuause they don't know the rules.

>>>> You knew that but chose to ignore it when making up your story.
>>
>>> It is a true story.
>>
>> Yeah, right.
>
> So I was right, drivers can do no wrong in your eyes.

People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between a
driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're on a
bike, in a car, etc.

You knew that.

That's why bikes on footways have to give way at every driveway.

[MrCheerful]

If it is a footway exclusively then the bicycle should be pushed, not
ridden.

[TMS320]

On 05/05/18 14:40, JNugent wrote:

> People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between a > driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're on a
> bike, in a car, etc.

Quote the statute. If you are able to then it is a bad law.

> You knew that.
If it exists, it is trumped by a requirement for a driver to always have
a duty of care. Barging out and causing a pedestrian to step back is
lack of care.

[TMS320]

On 06/05/18 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
> On 05/05/18 14:40, JNugent wrote:
>
>> People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between a
>> > driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're on a
> > bike, in a car, etc.
>
> Quote the statute. If you are able to then it is a bad law.

You are active because have replied to another thread since my request.
Nothing to support your idea?

[JNugent]

What are you talking about?

[TMS320]

On 07/05/18 15:56, JNugent wrote:
> On 07/05/2018 08:55, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 06/05/18 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 05/05/18 14:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>

>>>> [1] People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between

>>>> a driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're
>>>> on a bike, in a car, etc.
>>>

>>> [2] Quote the statute. If you are able to then it is a bad law.

>>
>> You are active because have replied to another thread since my
>> request. Nothing to support your idea?
>
> What are you talking about?

It's very simple. You make a statement, such as in [1], and as common
practice, someone asks you [2] to substantiate it.

For your information, a person riding a bike along the pavement (there
are plenty of shared paths), often has to give way at a driveway (just
like pedestrians), not because of an obligation, but because a driver
has a complete disregard for the safety of others.

[JNugent]

Who asked for what, and when, and what is the paragraph beginning "You
are active" about?

[TMS320]

The what and when are clear enough. I asked you to justify your
statement at the top on 06/05/18 23:12. You answered another thread at
07/05/18 00:43. Hence you had been active (on this group) before I asked
you again in the morning. One has to assume that you don't know what you
are talking about.

[JNugent]

I certainly don't know what *you* are talking about - which obviously
makes two of us.

Are you under the impression that I am obliged to do as you say?

Please disabuse yourself of that error soonest.

[TMS320]

I do happen to know.

> Are you under the impression that I am obliged to do as you say?

You are not obliged to but it depends on whether you want to be taken
seriously.