TopCat
Putin fanboy
No they haven't.
Side-by-side cycling
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
But don't you think "You should never" is a little ambiguous and open to interpretation?With any of it!
You're interpreting "you should never ..." as "It's fine. The Highway Code is out of date. Go for it!".
Are you really going to stick with this one?
keybored
Well done. You remember cat good.
Just as likely a civilian intern with a copy of MS Paint and the login to the force's Twitter account.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I know. And whatever plod he's quoted there has just said there's no law stopping them from doing it. That's true but the Highway Code advises against it in no uncertain terms. Bees has taken a dubious tweet from an unknown copper and mangled the fuck out of it to come up with something diametrically opposed to what the Highway Code says.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
But don't you think "You should never" is a little ambiguous and open to interpretation?
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Mark and Patricia McCloskey could use this as their defence. They could argue that "You should never point a firearm at anyone unless you intend to use it" is out of date, and actually means the exact opposite.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Aye, I agree there. Don’t really see the point of it
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Ugh
maomao
普費斯
What if there's forty of them? They take up less space on the road double file and it allows them to move quicker because they can rotate the lead riders. Shouldn't that be better for everyone?
keybored
Well done. You remember cat good.
To compliment and reassure each other on the fit of their Lycra attire.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
It’s a traffic cop (who usefully happens to also be a member of my cycling club) who has confirmed what is also said by multiple other coopers online - that cyclists are free to ride 2, 3 or more abreast and there is no law preventing this.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Apart from the reasons.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. The copper who is misinterpreting the Highway Code is a cyclist himself. Well I never!
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
You never mentioned there being a separate bike lane. In that case the bus should never be occupying the same part of the road as the cyclist, so there is no overtake, it’s very different from most roads in London.ok great
lets look at a real world example
heres an average london bike lane
should the bus be driving on the other side of hte road to overtake someone in the bike lane or is it doing so safely?
clearly that is deemed safe by the road makings
that wouldnt very different on many roads if there was no bike lane marking
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Average speed of a car in London is 8mph.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
so theres a consulation about updating the highway code here
and it says
Start quote:
- update Rule 66 to ensure cyclists are considerate towards horse riders, along with the following text:
[cyclists’ should] ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast
End quote
and the op article sites this lot who "initially" were happy with the update
but have had cyclists saying they think its not enough - making a shit arguemnt that people need to be able to chat while ridingWhy the Highway Code should protect riding two abreast | Cycling UK
Cycling two abreast doesn't just help deter dangerous overtaking, it's also a vital ingredient of the wonderful social side of cycling. Keir Gallagher, Cycling UK's campaigns manager, explains why the revised Highway Code must protect this.www.cyclinguk.org
"Cycling is more than just riding a bike: for many it’s also a social activity, a chance to catch up with friends, to spend family time together, or a way to meet new people as part of a cycling club "
oh dear
" course, this certainly doesn’t mean cyclists’ conversation comes above everything else or before road safety, but it is important to recognise that riding two abreast – in appropriate circumstances – is, for many people, intrinsic to cycling. "
lol
Following this, in our response to the consultation (which closes on 27 October) we will be proposing a new wording for this rule:
“[cyclists’ should] be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding with another and in small or large groups. You can ride two abreast and it is often safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Switch to single file if you consider it safer to allow drivers to overtake.”
I can get in the spirit of this, but that wording isnt good enough i dont think
Lots of the wording in proposed new clauses is not good enough. For example:
“You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.”
They should concentrate on stating, in a concise and simple way, things that aren’t covered elsewhere.
ska invita
back on the other side
looks average to me
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
He’s also the bloke that chases ruffians on their stolen quad bikes and points a radar gun at speeding Audis. A good chapAh, now we're getting somewhere. The copper who is misinterpreting the Highway Code is a cyclist himself. Well I never!
ska invita
back on the other side
in practice its not though is it
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
You might have to explain the concept of "average speed" here. This is Frank you're dealing with.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I can't believe a biased cop would ever lie to suit their own agenda, so it must be true.
I am, like most cyclists, a driver.
I disagree with this rule--in my experience the risk to you as a cyclist is greater on busy roads, as drivers attempt unsafe passes. I'd argue it is safer particularly in these roads to ride two abreast--forcing proper passing.
This really annoys my fellow drivers, as it means they have to get where they are going marginally later in order to make vulnerable road users more safe.
This is because those bothered by it are twats.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
It's pretty easy to demonstrate that it's not bikes causing slow moving city traffic at any rate.
And even if it is, who cares. If people don't enjoy driving, well it's optional so they don't have to do it.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I disagree with a lot of speed limits, so they must be wrong
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Parked cars travel even slower.
I coupled my disagreement to increased safety for road users. Can you do that? Otherwise the comparison here doesn't work.
ska invita
back on the other side
at what speed though? if your bobbing along at 15mph to have that all important chat on a 30mph its not safer - its road rage inducing
if you are keeping up with the speed limit or near enough then 100%
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I drive safer when I don't have to concentrate on my speed, and drive to suit road conditions instead.
