Near Miss of the Day 669: Cyclist confronts driver after 'worst overtake I've ever seen'

89 views
Skip to first unread message

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 6:32:28 AM11/27/21
to
The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.

It is one of the many close passes the cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.

Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?

https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 8:04:38 AM11/27/21
to
A good example of why it is pointless to confront motorists. The are not mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 8:59:30 AM11/27/21
to
He got a warning letter from the police though.

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 10:34:56 AM11/27/21
to
The point is the drivers first reaction was 'I was forced to drive dangerously' because the victim was 'in the middle of the road' In other words it was someone else's fault. Typical infant excuse.
No doubt the driver is angry at the letter because in his mind he did nothing wrong and the cyclist should have moved out of his way.



jnuge...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 6:32:17 PM11/27/21
to
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 9:34:56 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 13:59:30 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:04:38 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 11:32:28 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.
> > > >
> > > > It is one of the many close passes the fairy-cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the fairy-cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?
> > > >
> > > > https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177
> > > A good example of why it is pointless to confront motorists. The are not mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.

> > He got a warning letter from the police though.

> The point is the drivers first reaction was 'I was forced to drive dangerously' because the victim was 'in the middle of the road' In other words it was someone else's fault. Typical infant excuse.
> No doubt the driver is angry at the letter because in his mind he did nothing wrong and the fairy-cyclist should have moved out of his way.

So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").

Thank you for proving a point.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 28, 2021, 6:17:37 AM11/28/21
to

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 28, 2021, 7:22:03 AM11/28/21
to
Or Horse riders. They don't pay Rude Tax.




TMS320

unread,
Nov 28, 2021, 2:17:26 PM11/28/21
to
On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").

No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 28, 2021, 3:32:40 PM11/28/21
to
Please do not feed the Trolls.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 28, 2021, 4:18:49 PM11/28/21
to
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:17:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

JNugent

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 10:11:44 AM11/29/21
to
Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?

What does the word "never" mean?

What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?



JNugent

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 10:13:21 AM11/29/21
to
That calls for opinion of the situation.

Opinions of the situation may, and probably will, differ from time to
time and from person to person.

The word "never", OTOH, is not subject to opinion.

It means... er... never.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 12:12:52 PM11/29/21
to
On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:22:03 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> > Why don't they get angry at these too?
> >
> > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFRtefpWUAMuDjH?format=jpg&name=small
> Or Horse riders. They don't pay Rude Tax.

Horses can damage the impatient driver's body work in a flurry of hooves, so they stay well clear until it's safe to overtake, just as the HC states. Same with tractors and other farm machinery.

TMS320

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 12:59:25 PM11/29/21
to
In your opinion? Meaningless.

JNugent

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 6:41:22 PM11/29/21
to
Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion" as to
when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says, simply and
explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".

The rule means that it is never acceptable to do the thing which is
forbidden. Opinion on the subject is meaningless and childish. Just
*don't* do it.



TMS320

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 6:58:53 PM11/29/21
to
On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>>
>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means
>>>> don't blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>>
>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass"
>>> EXISTS?
>>
>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>
>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
>>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>
>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
>
> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion" as to
> when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says, simply and
> explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".

It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.

It would the opinion of any sensible person that the driver broke a rule
by overtaking in an unsafe manner.

> The rule means that it is never acceptable to do the thing which is
> forbidden. Opinion on the subject is meaningless and childish. Just
> *don't* do it
Indeed. Don't overtake in a unsafe manner.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 6:55:52 AM11/30/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:58:53 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Indeed. Don't overtake in a unsafe manner.

HC 163
Overtake ONLY when it is /safe and legal/ to do so. You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 7:16:51 AM11/30/21
to
Define 'obstruct'. A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.

JNugent

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 7:19:38 AM11/30/21
to
On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>>>
>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means
>>>>> don't blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>>>
>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass"
>>>> EXISTS?
>>>
>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>>
>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow
>>>> justify failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>>
>>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
>>
>> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion" as to
>> when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says, simply and
>> explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".
>
> It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.

Nonsense. The fairy-cyclist clearly obstructed a driver who wished to
overtake - a patent breach of HC Rule 168, which provides that such
obstruction is something which should *never* be done.

What does the rule say?

"Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".

Note that it is not "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake
unless you feel like it".

Did the driver wish to overtake? Clearly so.

Was the driver obstructed by the fairy-cyclist? Clearly so.

> It would the opinion of any sensible person that the driver broke a rule
> by overtaking in an unsafe manner.

Your subjective opinion, like that of any other fairy-cyclist, is not
relevant.

The rule is *not* "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake unless
you feel like it for reasons of your own no matter how far-fetched".

The rule reads "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>
>> The rule means that it is never acceptable to do the thing which is
>> forbidden. Opinion on the subject is meaningless and childish. Just
>> *don't* do it

> Indeed. Don't overtake in a unsafe manner.

That has a certain validity, but in this particular context, it has none
at all.

"Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".

Not "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake unless you 'think'
he's doing something wrong".

That is all.

But apparently, for some fairy-cyclists, the word "never" has an odd
meaning, more akin to "sometimes".

JNugent

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 7:20:32 AM11/30/21
to
HC 168:

Never (got that? NEVER!) obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake.

JNugent

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 8:40:28 AM11/30/21
to
> Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.

Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?


swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 9:23:51 AM11/30/21
to
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.

Not quite correct - THIS cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium


Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 9:35:19 AM11/30/21
to
Correct.

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 9:42:04 AM11/30/21
to
How did that cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty.

JNugent

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 10:20:08 AM11/30/21
to
The fairy-cyclist was obstructing a driver who wished to overtake.

Other fairy-cyclists posting here have attempted to "justify" the
obstruction, but they haven't, to their credit, denied that it happened.

They simply wriggled on their understanding of the word "never", as in
"Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake" (HC, Rule 168).

They seemed to be claiming instead that "never" doesn't mean "never" and
instead means "sometimes".

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 10:42:01 AM11/30/21
to
On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 15:20:08 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 02:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 13:40:28 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 30/11/2021 12:16 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
> >>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
> >
> >>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> >>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> >>>>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
> >
> >>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
> >>>> What does the word "never" mean?
> >>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
> >>>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
> >
> >>> Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
> >
> >> Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
> >> fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?
> >
> > Correct.
> The fairy-cyclist was obstructing a driver who wished to overtake.
>

How is that possible?

JNugent

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 11:00:20 AM11/30/21
to
Do you say that it isn't possible? Not even by fairy-riding right out on
the crown of the road and refusing to move over to facilitate an
overtaking move?

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 11:55:28 AM11/30/21
to
Correct.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 12:10:05 PM11/30/21
to
He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 12:30:36 PM11/30/21
to
ISTR an event many years ago when a 'law abiding' driver crashed and blocked the M6 so all subsidised drivers were forced onto the A6 which happened to coincide with the Lancaster critical mass ride. Of course this meant it was all the cyclists' fault because motorists pay rude tax even though the primary road users were delayed as much as the road hoovers.

JNugent

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 1:07:22 PM11/30/21
to
Are you sure you can read and comprehend English?

JNugent

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 1:11:05 PM11/30/21
to
On 30/11/2021 05:30 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 17:10:05 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:42:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
>>>>> A fairy-cyclist fairy-cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.

>>>> Not quite correct - THIS fairy-cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
>
>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium

>>> How did that fairy-cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty [?].

>> He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a fairy-cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.

> ISTR an event many years ago when a 'law abiding' driver crashed and blocked the M6 so all drivers were forced onto the A6 which happened to coincide with the Lancaster critical mass [fairy-cycle] ride. Of course this meant it was all the fairy-cyclists' fault because motorists pay rude tax even though the fairy-cyclists were delayed as much as the drivers.

I fixed a few errors that both of you had made.

No charge (that always gladdens the heart of a fairy-cyclist).

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 1:22:14 PM11/30/21
to
I have never heard Critical Mass featured in a road traffic warning though.

JNugent

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 1:36:44 PM11/30/21
to
On 30/11/2021 06:22 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:30:36 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 17:10:05 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:42:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
>>>>>> A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
>>>>> Not quite correct - THIS fairy-cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium

>>>> How did that fairy-cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty.

>>> He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a fairy-cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.

>> ISTR an event many years ago when a 'law abiding' driver crashed and blocked the M6 so all subsidised drivers were forced onto the A6 which happened to coincide with the Lancaster critical mass ride. Of course this meant it was all the fairy-cyclists' fault because motorists pay rude tax even though the primary road users were delayed as much as the road hoovers.
>
> I have never heard Critical Mass featured in a road traffic warning though.

Oh, you moved to London, did you?

Mike Collins

unread,
Nov 30, 2021, 3:56:00 PM11/30/21
to
It was a long time ago. M6 was closed because of an 'accident' and subsidised traffic was diverted onto the A6. Since we are told all congestion is caused by cyclists Critical Mass was blamed

TMS320

unread,
Dec 1, 2021, 12:57:11 PM12/1/21
to
On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that cyclists should obey Highway
>>>>>>> Code Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to
>>>>>>> pass").
>>>>
>>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to
>>>>>> overtake until it is safe. Which on single track roads,
>>>>>> especially, means don't blast past, causing the cyclist to
>>>>>> wobble.
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to
>>>>> pass" EXISTS?
>>>>
>>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>>>
>>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow
>>>>> justify failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>>>
>>>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
>>>
>>> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion"
>>> as to when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says,
>>> simply and explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".
>>
>> It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.
>
> Nonsense. The cyclist clearly obstructed a driver who wished to
> overtake - a patent breach of HC Rule 168, which provides that such
> obstruction is something which should *never* be done.

The cyclist can be seen to move. The reason you give is your opinion only.

> What does the rule say?
>
> "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".

Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I go to the
police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they should
have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".

You're completely barking.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 1, 2021, 1:15:02 PM12/1/21
to
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> immediately pull over as I close the gap.

I wanted to overtake a tractor pulling a trailer loaded with sugar beet today which was only doing 15mph on a 60mph road, i.e.about as fast as a cyclist. The driver of the tractor did not pull over to let me pass, so I had to wait until it was "safe and legal" to pass as the HC describes. I did not spit out my dummy at being "held up".

Mike Collins

unread,
Dec 1, 2021, 2:36:32 PM12/1/21
to
Stop confusing the issue with inconvenient facts.

> If they don't I go to the
> police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they should
> have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".

Nujents would enjoy that far too much.

>
> You're completely barking.

I think he is more like Upminster.
Message has been deleted

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 1, 2021, 3:08:07 PM12/1/21
to
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:36:32 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

>
> >
> > You're completely barking.
>
> I think he is more like Upminster.

The late Medjob would say "Dagenham".

JNugent

unread,
Dec 1, 2021, 3:39:51 PM12/1/21
to
Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?

> The reason you give is your opinion only.

I have not speculated on the fairy-cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
overtaking driver.
>
>> What does the rule say?
>> "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>
> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I go to the
> police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they should
> have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".

It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct a
driver who wishes to overtake).

You know better than the Code, do you?

> You're completely barking.

That looks like a mirror job. Fairy-cyclists here are usually pretty hot
on the Highway Code.

Well, unless they don't like one or more of its rules, of course. Where
that happens, they just ignore it.

Mike Collins

unread,
Dec 1, 2021, 4:59:16 PM12/1/21
to
On Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 20:39:51 UTC, JNugent wrote:


> I have not speculated on the fairy-cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
> overtaking driver.

Once again , how is it possible for a Lammasu-cyclist to obstruct a subsidised road user.

>
> That looks like a mirror job. Fairy-cyclists here are usually pretty hot
> on the Highway Code.

What do Xorn-cyclists have to do with this discussion?

TMS320

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 4:25:44 AM12/2/21
to
On 01/12/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:

>> The cyclist can be seen to move.
>
> Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?
>
> I have not speculated on the cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
> overtaking driver.

Don't be stupid.

>>> What does the rule say? "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to
>>> overtake".
>>
>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not
>> have to slow down when I come up behind another driver because
>> they will immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I
>> go to the police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they
>> should have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
>
> It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct a
> driver who wishes to overtake).

I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
to work.

>> You're completely barking.

I am expressing a fact.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 6:49:48 AM12/2/21
to
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:25:44 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
> to work.

I "wish" that all of the traffic getting in MY way would go away.
Bless.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 10:31:35 AM12/2/21
to
On 02/12/2021 09:25 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 01/12/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>> The cyclist can be seen to move.
>>
>> Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?
>>
>> I have not speculated on the cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
>> overtaking driver.
>
> Don't be stupid.

You're getting a bit past the mark now, lad.

>>>> What does the rule say? "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to
>>>> overtake".
>>>
>>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have
>>> to slow down when I come up behind another driver because
>>> they will immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I
>>> go to the police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they
>>> should have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
>>
>> It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct a
>> driver who wishes to overtake).
>
> I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
> to work.

The vehicular equivalent of "body language".

it is never difficult to divine that the driver or rider wishes to
overtake. If there were, there would be no point in the existence of
Rule 168. And the HC cannot, apparently, be wrong. Well, not unless it
imposes a duty or responsibility upon a fairy-cyclist, when all
justification for the Code suddenly disappears.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 12:22:48 PM12/2/21
to
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> immediately pull over as I close the gap.

There is a new law change in the HC next month.

Rule 163.

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should …
• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
• give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
As a guide:
─ leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
─ pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph and allow at least 2 metres of space
─ allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where there is no pavement)
─ take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night


IMPORTANT CHANGE ─ you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 12:46:19 PM12/2/21
to
On 02/12/2021 05:22 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
>> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
>> immediately pull over as I close the gap.

> There is a new law change in the HC next month.

> Rule 163.

> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should …
> • stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
> • give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).

> As a guide:
> ─ leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
> ─ pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph and allow at least 2 metres of space
> ─ allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where there is no pavement)
> ─ take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night

None of that reflects a change in the law. The word "must" would
otherwise appear. And it doesn't, does it?
>
> IMPORTANT CHANGE ─ you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

"Should", not "must".

PS: I like the bit: "Fairy-cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary
traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the
driver may not be able to see you".

Surely proceeding with caution is totally outside the capabilities of
the average fairy-cyclist?

Are you going to complain about that wording?

Mr Pounder Esquire

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 8:07:21 PM12/2/21
to
swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have
>> to slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
>> immediately pull over as I close the gap.
>
> There is a new law change in the HC next month.
>
> Rule 163.
>
> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should .
> . stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the
> queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass
> on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on
> their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may
> not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on
> the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is
> safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
> . give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles
> at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules
> 211 to 215).
> As a guide:
> ? leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up
> to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
> ? pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph
> and allow at least 2 metres of space
> ? allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when
> passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where
> there is no pavement)
> ? take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists,
> cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad
> weather (including high winds) and at night
>
>
> IMPORTANT CHANGE ? you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist,
> horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it
> is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

Sounds ever so VERY exciting!
Did you have another wank over this?
Why have you not ever made an original posting to this group? Any cunt can
copy/paste.
Have you been a cunt for all of your life?
Have you been a wanker for all of your sad life?
Have you ever had a fuck?




Peter Keller

unread,
Dec 3, 2021, 4:28:53 AM12/3/21
to
What is it to you?

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 3, 2021, 5:33:44 AM12/3/21
to
Don't visit urc if you don't want to read about cycling matters - simple.

Rob Morley

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 9:18:42 AM12/5/21
to
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:18:49 -0800 (PST)
"swldx...@gmail.com" <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:17:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
> > No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> > until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means
> > don't blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>
> 163
> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give
> motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
> would when overtaking a car.

The problem with that is "didn't hit anything" when overtaking another
car gets translated into "safe pass" by the average sub-standard
driver, likewise "only clipped his elbow with my mirror".

JNugent

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 9:29:22 AM12/5/21
to
On 05/12/2021 02:18 pm, Rob Morley wrote:

> "swldx...@gmail.com" <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:17:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means
>>> don't blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.

I wonder whether the term "single-track road" is what was really meant
there. on STRs, it's usually impossible to overtake because the
carriageway is literally only wide enough to handle one traffic lane
(serving both directions and with lay-by-style "passing places"). that's
what it means: one direction roads.

It seems to me that the meaning was single carriageway roads, which
might be anywhere from around 18' kerb-to-kerb to 40'+. Because of the
variation, no universal rule about exact or approximate clearances in
overtaking can be easily envisaged.

>> 163
>> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give
>> motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
>> would when overtaking a car.

Overtake a motor-cyclist?

A chance would be a fine thing, especially with a bus.

> The problem with that is "didn't hit anything" when overtaking another
> car gets translated into "safe pass" by the average sub-standard
> driver, likewise "only clipped his elbow with my mirror".

That would be a careless driving offence (and potential summons).

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 12:18:49 PM12/5/21
to
That's why the law has been reworded thus:

─ leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds

You don't get door mirrors 1.5m wide. :-)

TMS320

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 5:56:33 PM12/5/21
to
On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
> On 02/12/2021 09:25 am, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>>> The cyclist can be seen to move.
>>>
>>> Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?
>>>
>>> I have not speculated on the cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
>>> overtaking driver.
>>
>> Don't be stupid.
>
> You're getting a bit past the mark now, lad.

Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to obstruct.

>>>>> What does the rule say? "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to
>>>>> overtake".
>>>>
>>>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have
>>>> to slow down when I come up behind another driver because
>>>> they will immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I
>>>> go to the police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they
>>>> should have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
>>>
>>> It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct a
>>> driver who wishes to overtake).
>>
>> I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
>> to work.
>
> The vehicular equivalent of "body language".
>
> it is never difficult to divine that the driver or rider wishes to
> overtake. If there were, there would be no point in the existence of
> Rule 168. And the HC cannot, apparently, be wrong. Well, not unless it
> imposes a duty or responsibility upon a cyclist, when all
> justification for the Code suddenly disappears.

For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 6:32:34 PM12/5/21
to
On 05/12/2021 05:18 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:18:42 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
>> "swldx...@gmail.com" <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means
>>>> don't blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>
>>> 163
>>> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give
>>> motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
>>> would when overtaking a car.
>
>> The problem with that is "didn't hit anything" when overtaking another
>> car gets translated into "safe pass" by the average sub-standard
>> driver, likewise "only clipped his elbow with my mirror".
>
> That's why the law has been reworded thus:
>
> ─ leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
>
> You don't get door mirrors 1.5m wide. :-)

What "law" is that?

Act, Section and sub-section, please.

Then the Statutory Instrument and the Regulation number.

Failing to answer means you're making it up.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 6:34:39 PM12/5/21
to
On 05/12/2021 10:56 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
>> On 02/12/2021 09:25 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/12/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The cyclist can be seen to move.
>>>>
>>>> Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?
>>>>
>>>> I have not speculated on the cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
>>>> overtaking driver.
>>>
>>> Don't be stupid.
>>
>> You're getting a bit past the mark now, lad.
>
> Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to obstruct.

I have not suggested what his reasons might have been. It might have
been a mistake. It might have been mischief or malice. All of them
happen. There is no way that I can actually know which of them it was.

>>>>>> What does the rule say? "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to
>>>>>> overtake".
>>>>>
>>>>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not
>>>>> have to slow down when I come up behind another driver because
>>>>> they will immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I
>>>>> go to the police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they
>>>>> should have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
>>>>
>>>> It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct a
>>>> driver who wishes to overtake).
>>>
>>> I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
>>> to work.
>>
>> The vehicular equivalent of "body language".
>>
>> it is never difficult to divine that the driver or rider wishes to
>> overtake. If there were, there would be no point in the existence of
>> Rule 168. And the HC cannot, apparently, be wrong. Well, not unless it
>> imposes a duty or responsibility upon a cyclist, when all
>> justification for the Code suddenly disappears.
>
> For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.

"*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".

Why do you suggest that the rule exists?

TMS320

unread,
Dec 6, 2021, 5:07:15 AM12/6/21
to
On 05/12/2021 23:34, JNugent wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 10:56 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2021 09:25 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 01/12/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The cyclist can be seen to move.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not speculated on the cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
>>>>> overtaking driver.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be stupid.
>>>
>>> You're getting a bit past the mark now, lad.
>>
>> Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to obstruct.
>
> I have not suggested what his reasons might have been. It might have
> been a mistake. It might have been mischief or malice. All of them
> happen. There is no way that I can actually know which of them it was.

Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering through without
giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his wish".

>>>>>>> What does the rule say? "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to
>>>>>>> overtake".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not
>>>>>> have to slow down when I come up behind another driver because
>>>>>> they will immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I
>>>>>> go to the police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they
>>>>>> should have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct
>>>>> a driver who wishes to overtake).
>>>>
>>>> I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
>>>> to work.
>>>
>>> The vehicular equivalent of "body language".
>>>
>>> it is never difficult to divine that the driver or rider wishes to
>>> overtake. If there were, there would be no point in the existence of
>>> Rule 168. And the HC cannot, apparently, be wrong. Well, not unless
>>> it imposes a duty or responsibility upon a cyclist, when all
>>> justification for the Code suddenly disappears.
>>
>> For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.
>
> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>
> Why do you suggest that the rule exists?

You have previously made a rule that one should not question the rules
our lords and masters have given us. But since you want to break your
own rule, and you raised the issue about obstruction, you make the
suggestion.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 6, 2021, 7:09:06 AM12/6/21
to
On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 23:34, JNugent wrote:
>> On 05/12/2021 10:56 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 02/12/2021 09:25 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 01/12/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cyclist can be seen to move.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not speculated on the cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
>>>>>> overtaking driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't be stupid.
>>>>
>>>> You're getting a bit past the mark now, lad.
>>>
>>> Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to
>>> obstruct.
>>
>> I have not suggested what his reasons might have been. It might have
>> been a mistake. It might have been mischief or malice. All of them
>> happen. There is no way that I can actually know which of them it was.
>
> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering through without
> giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his wish".

I wasn't there. Were you?

The fairy-cyclist involved in the story *was* there.
>
>>>>>>>> What does the rule say? "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to
>>>>>>>> overtake".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not
>>>>>>> have to slow down when I come up behind another driver because
>>>>>>> they will immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I
>>>>>>> go to the police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me
>>>>>>> they should have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct
>>>>>> a driver who wishes to overtake).
>>>>>
>>>>> I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
>>>>> to work.
>>>>
>>>> The vehicular equivalent of "body language".
>>>>
>>>> it is never difficult to divine that the driver or rider wishes to
>>>> overtake. If there were, there would be no point in the existence of
>>>> Rule 168. And the HC cannot, apparently, be wrong. Well, not unless
>>>> it imposes a duty or responsibility upon a cyclist, when all
>>>> justification for the Code suddenly disappears.
>>>
>>> For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.
>>
>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>>
>> Why do you suggest that the rule exists?
>
> You have previously made a rule that one should not question the rules
> our lords and masters have given us. But since you want to break your
> own rule, and you raised the issue about obstruction, you make the
> suggestion.

The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
wording, it can have no other purpose.

TMS320

unread,
Dec 6, 2021, 8:18:25 PM12/6/21
to
> The cyclist involved in the story *was* there.

We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would recognise the
situation.
A pretty meaningless collection of words.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 9:51:38 AM12/7/21
to
And?
For fairy-cyclists, that merely means "I don't like the implications of
the rule because it spells out that I have responsibilities to others".

HTH.

TMS320

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 10:21:53 AM12/7/21
to
On 07/12/2021 14:51, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/12/2021 11:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 06/12/2021 12:09, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:

>>>> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering
>>>> through without giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his
>>>> wish".
>>
>>> I wasn't there. Were you? The cyclist involved in the story *was*
>>> there.
>>
>> We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would recognise
>> the situation.
>
> And?

It means you're wrong and the cyclist was right. (Whch happens regularly.)

>>>>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake". Why do
>>>>> you suggest that the rule exists?
>>
>>>> You have previously made a rule that one should not question
>>>> the rules our lords and masters have given us. But since you
>>>> want to break your own rule, and you raised the issue about
>>>> obstruction, you make the suggestion.
>>
>>> The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
>>> wording, it can have no other purpose.
>>
>> A pretty meaningless collection of words.
>
> For cyclists, that merely means "I don't like the implications
> of the rule because it spells out that I have responsibilities to
> others".

Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying you
want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 10:42:48 AM12/7/21
to
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:21:53 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying you
> want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.

Rule 163.

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should …
• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
• give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
As a guide:
─ leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
─ pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph and allow at least 2 metres of space
─ allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where there is no pavement)
─ take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night


IMPORTANT CHANGE ─ you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 7:12:10 PM12/7/21
to
On 07/12/2021 03:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 14:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/12/2021 11:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2021 12:09, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>>> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering
>>>>> through without giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his
>>>>> wish".
>>>
>>>> I wasn't there. Were you? The cyclist involved in the story *was*
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would recognise
>>> the situation.
>>
>> And?
>
> It means you're wrong and the cyclist was right. (Whch happens regularly.)

That's your assertion for the purpose of trying to hold your position in
discussion. It has no validity.

>>>>>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake". Why do
>>>>>> you suggest that the rule exists?
>>>
>>>>> You have previously made a rule that one should not question
>>>>> the rules our lords and masters have given us. But since you
>>>>> want to break your own rule, and you raised the issue about
>>>>> obstruction, you make the suggestion.
>>>
>>>> The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
>>>>  wording, it can have no other purpose.
>>>
>>> A pretty meaningless collection of words.
>>
>> For cyclists, that merely means "I don't like the implications
>> of the rule because it spells out that I have responsibilities to
>> others".
>
> Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying you
> want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.

You really don't like rules that put responsibility on you, do you?

Neither, it seems, do most fairy-cyclists.

it's understandable.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 7:14:04 PM12/7/21