I like to think that I’ve managed to avoid killing someone while driving is not because of some imagined perfection, just a simple adherence to the laws of the land, coupled with a bit of experience. Keeping an eye out for potential risks ahead is a basic concept for a driver isn’t it ? That’s all I do and well, bugger me, after over 30 years it still works.
Of course the speed difference is of consequence, if you’re tooling along the dual at an illegal 56mph you have less time & distance to react to any potential problems that may occur, did you not know that?
Slackbladder:
I like to think that I’ve managed to avoid killing someone while driving is not because of some imagined perfection, just a simple adherence to the laws of the land, coupled with a bit of experience. Keeping an eye out for potential risks ahead is a basic concept for a driver isn’t it ? That’s all I do and well, bugger me, after over 30 years it still works.
Of course the speed difference is of consequence, if you’re tooling along the dual at an illegal 56mph you have less time & distance to react to any potential problems that may occur, did you not know that?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the driver in this case believed all that bs too.Until now.Firstly you don’t have any evidence that the driver in question was running at 56 mph and even if he was you’re deluding yourself if you think that the extra 6 mph would make the slightest difference in the case of the speed differential between a truck running at the legal dual carriageway national limit and a cyclist.In addition to which you’ve then totally ignored that issue of cars running at the legal national speed limit for such roads ( probably because you obviously didn’t even know it ) which needs to be taken into account assuming that a driver has been as good as you’d like to think they are in slowing up to maintain seperation distance behind the cyclist and then overtaking in lane 2 from that speed.Your ideas seem to be based on the views of such cyclists certainly not from that of a driver who understands all the implications of what you’re saying.
You call it bs while sat in your armchair, I do it 5 times a week sat in a MAN. As the driver in question managed to slaughter 2 cyclists in one go I would say he didn’t believe it at all, otherwise another preventable “accident” wouldnt have occurred. It would appear that, as this sort of thing happens rarely then most drivers are in fact able to avoid cyclists. The only difference is I would put it down to experience and you, well, as you don’t seem to think its possible to see a problem and act in time to avoid it, without getting right up behind it before pulling out, would put it down to blind luck. Just as well your not still on the roads I’m thinking.
Carryfast:
Malky80:
I’d like to see a ban on cyclists on roads that allow any vehicle to legally travel more than 30mph. This would mean the government pulling its finger out and setting sensible speeds for rural roads, rather than just throwing up a national speed limit sign. Too many drivers (of all types of vehicle) take liberties with safety when traveling on such roads.
That doesn’t make sense.First you’re saying ban cyclists from all roads subject to more than the 30 mph limit then you’re saying reduce or remove the national speed from such roads.In addition to which many urban roads limited to 30 mph are just as dangerous,for cyclists,as dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit.It’s just that the reasons are different.In the case of urban roads it’s the risk of collision by excessive proximity of the two totally incompatible types of road users and in the case of dual carriageways it’s mosty about the speed differentials.
The fact is the government have already reduced the sensible national speed limits on loads of roads to ridiculous levels in many cases such as 40 mph on single carriageway roads and 50 mph on roads which were subject to the national dual carriageway limit.While at the same time leaving the 60 mph national limit on small narrow country lanes.The only liberty taking there is all on the part of the government.Then to add insult to injury the cyclists want roads like the A3,which were built at a massive cost for high speed use,to be limited to ridiculous speeds so thay can use them as their own private race track for so called ‘time trialling’ etc.
I’ve driven on countless narrow windy country roads that have national speed limits attributed to them, which should be no more than 30mph. All I’m saying is that if a ban on cyclists on 30+mph roads were to come in to place, that would eliminate them from all rural roads, which is unfair. I’m really only on about B roads, C roads and unclassified roads, as I feel most A roads are fine to have national speed limits attributed to them. So you would be unlikely to have cyclists holding up important trunk routes and endangering their lives in the process.
As for Urban roads, if cyclists were to travel in the middle of their side of the road, rather than on the left, it would encourage vehicles behind to treat them with more respect and only pass when it’s safe to do so, rather than squeezing them into the gutter.
For the benefit of Carryfast,the speed limit for cars on duals is 70 mph.The few times that I ride on D.Cs. I cycle along the white line or just to the left of it(not the one in the middle of the road)A tractor is pretty much stuck taking up the whole width of the lane where a cyclist can get up on the grass to take avoiding action.
Well its about time cyclists started to use rules of the road. In about the last month have seen 3 cyclists ride through red lights and just got abuse when asked one why he done it. Said there was nothing coming so didn’t matter. Complete ■■■■■■■
Here’s one for you; more a case of bloody awful planning and execution than anything but with potentially dangerous consequences.
Main A40 closed for re-surfacing this weekend east of Carmarthen at Pontarcothi, so all traffic diverted onto the B4300; not the best of roads on a good day but much worse when it’s taking all the A40 Saturday traffic too. I’m coming back to base from a run up to Hereford with an 8-wheel bulker, about 4 miles out of Carmarthen there’s a tail-back. Not particularly surprised; till I find out the delay is caused by a charity cycle ride. Pick-up truck at the rear with hazards going, then random cyclists wobbling all over the road.
Quandary; do I stay behind the pickup, increasing the delay and risk more daring car drivers overtaking me blind, or dodge past where I can? I chose the latter, managed to leapfrog most of the cyclists safely till I got to a bunch who evidently hadn’t read the bit in the Highway Code about “riding in single file on busy or narrow roads”, and trust me this one ticked both boxes. I was reluctant to use the horn, so stayed behind them till I found a bit wide and straight enough to pass them.
About 2 miles outside Carmarthen there’s a long-standing set of traffic lights protecting a collapsed embankment; they went red as I approached them, I stopped, cyclist in front ignored them, rode through and caused a lorry coming the other way to stop for him. What a total ■■■■.
Approaching the T-junction at Llangunnor, on the outskirts of Carmarthen, I expected to see some sort of marshalling in evidence as it’s not the best of exits; not a ■■■■ thing, only a woman in a hatchback who seemed to be the “lead dog” of the ride and had absolutely no idea of the havoc they were creating. There were cyclists behind her going in all directions, I was just relieved to have passed them without incident.
Now I don’t mind cyclists; as some of you know I’m a two-wheeled road user myself albeit of the powered variety. I have to say though that whoever organised that particular stunt, charity or no bloody charity, needs his or her arse kicking, surely they should’ve checked with the police and council to ensure the road would be safe; same goes for some of the riders who proved every bad thing that’s been said above about bad habits amongst cyclists. Ironically the charity was something for the local hospital but it could easily have ended up with many of the participants delivering the sponsorship money a ■■■■ sight earlier than intended.
alamcculloch:
For the benefit of Carryfast,the speed limit for cars on duals is 70 mph.The few times that I ride on D.Cs. I cycle along the white line or just to the left of it(not the one in the middle of the road)A tractor is pretty much stuck taking up the whole width of the lane where a cyclist can get up on the grass to take avoiding action.
If you’d have bothered to read my posts you’d have seen that I actually said that there’s no difference between the national speed limit for cars on dual carriageways or motorways.It was one of those who’d like to think that he’s an expert driver who obviously thought it was 60 mph.As for cyclists riding inside of the road edge markings that’s just bs as usual being that in general there either isn’t sufficient room to do so or they still choose to ride in lane 1 even if there’s a full width hard shoulder as in the case of the A3 or even choose not to use the provided cycle path and still use lane 1 as in the case of the A24 north of Dorking.The fact is if they’re not actually on the carriageway in lane 1 they wouldn’t get hit unless the truck is driving across the road edge markings.
Malky80:
Carryfast:
Malky80:
I’d like to see a ban on cyclists on roads that allow any vehicle to legally travel more than 30mph. This would mean the government pulling its finger out and setting sensible speeds for rural roads, rather than just throwing up a national speed limit sign. Too many drivers (of all types of vehicle) take liberties with safety when traveling on such roads.
That doesn’t make sense.First you’re saying ban cyclists from all roads subject to more than the 30 mph limit then you’re saying reduce or remove the national speed from such roads.In addition to which many urban roads limited to 30 mph are just as dangerous,for cyclists,as dual carriageways subject to the national speed limit.It’s just that the reasons are different.In the case of urban roads it’s the risk of collision by excessive proximity of the two totally incompatible types of road users and in the case of dual carriageways it’s mosty about the speed differentials.
The fact is the government have already reduced the sensible national speed limits on loads of roads to ridiculous levels in many cases such as 40 mph on single carriageway roads and 50 mph on roads which were subject to the national dual carriageway limit.While at the same time leaving the 60 mph national limit on small narrow country lanes.The only liberty taking there is all on the part of the government.Then to add insult to injury the cyclists want roads like the A3,which were built at a massive cost for high speed use,to be limited to ridiculous speeds so thay can use them as their own private race track for so called ‘time trialling’ etc.
I’ve driven on countless narrow windy country roads that have national speed limits attributed to them, which should be no more than 30mph. All I’m saying is that if a ban on cyclists on 30+mph roads were to come in to place, that would eliminate them from all rural roads, which is unfair. I’m really only on about B roads, C roads and unclassified roads, as I feel most A roads are fine to have national speed limits attributed to them. So you would be unlikely to have cyclists holding up important trunk routes and endangering their lives in the process.
As for Urban roads, if cyclists were to travel in the middle of their side of the road, rather than on the left, it would encourage vehicles behind to treat them with more respect and only pass when it’s safe to do so, rather than squeezing them into the gutter.
My argument is simply that cyclists should be banned from all roads wherever possible.In the case of many roads that would mean shared pedestrian/cycleways regardless of the speed limit which seems to be a case of cyclists arguing against the idea when it already exists in many places but as usual the selfish zb’s don’t want to use them because they don’t want to take responsibility of riding sensibly amongst pedestrians although in most cases existing pedestrian ways are rarely used to anything like their capacity,if at all,by pedestrians anyway.IE it’s ridiculous to see cars and trucks overtaking close to cyclists when there’s a totally empty,wide and safe walkway next to them. 
In the case of dual carriageways subject to the national limit the regs should be the same as motorways in regard to the types of vehicles which can use them and cyclists etc being that such roads are effectively motorways in all but name.However in all cases there’s no way that any types of road subject to the national speed limit are safe to use by cyclists whatsoever.
Slackbladder:
You call it bs while sat in your armchair, I do it 5 times a week sat in a MAN. As the driver in question managed to slaughter 2 cyclists in one go I would say he didn’t believe it at all, otherwise another preventable “accident” wouldnt have occurred. It would appear that, as this sort of thing happens rarely then most drivers are in fact able to avoid cyclists. The only difference is I would put it down to experience and you, well, as you don’t seem to think its possible to see a problem and act in time to avoid it, without getting right up behind it before pulling out, would put it down to blind luck. Just as well your not still on the roads I’m thinking.
Firstly you seem to have as much understanding of what I meant by reducing speed to that required to maintain seperation distance behind a cyclist as you have about the national speed limit on dual carriageways as they apply to cars.Reading your ideas I think it’s you who seems to be all about maintaining speed and then just hoping that someone at the side of you would let you force your way into lane 2 before you flatten yet another lemming.
Here’s an idea why don’t you get on your bike and spend a week riding it once a day between London and Guildford in lane 1 of the A3 and see how long you’d last.Being that it’s legal for you to do so.
Lest we forget.
Carryfast does not hold a licence for the HGV he is referring to. If memory serves, he has never held one.
Carryfast, do you now or have you ever driven an articulated vehicle legally on a public road in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Slightly of the current row another cyclist killed .First borris bike cyclist died in a crash with a hgv
Carryfast:
Slackbladder:
You call it bs while sat in your armchair, I do it 5 times a week sat in a MAN. As the driver in question managed to slaughter 2 cyclists in one go I would say he didn’t believe it at all, otherwise another preventable “accident” wouldnt have occurred. It would appear that, as this sort of thing happens rarely then most drivers are in fact able to avoid cyclists. The only difference is I would put it down to experience and you, well, as you don’t seem to think its possible to see a problem and act in time to avoid it, without getting right up behind it before pulling out, would put it down to blind luck. Just as well your not still on the roads I’m thinking.Firstly you seem to have as much understanding of what I meant by reducing speed to that required to maintain seperation distance behind a cyclist as you have about the national speed limit on dual carriageways as they apply to cars.Reading your ideas I think it’s you who seems to be all about maintaining speed and then just hoping that someone at the side of you would let you force your way into lane 2 before you flatten yet another lemming.
Here’s an idea why don’t you get on your bike and spend a week riding it once a day between London and Guildford in lane 1 of the A3 and see how long you’d last.Being that it’s legal for you to do so.
Strangely, I know a guy who commutes from Kent to Greenford every day by bicycle. He works for the Met Police Commercial Vehicle Unit - investigating HGV crashes. He has done so for sixteen years. He’s as fit as a fiddle and a ■■■■ good copper.
I’m fairly sure that narrows it down to one person.
I don’t know if he frequents these forums and I’m not about to name him, but if he does I’d love to hear his take.
Scanner:
Lest we forget.Carryfast does not hold a licence for the HGV he is referring to. If memory serves, he has never held one.
Carryfast, do you now or have you ever driven an articulated vehicle legally on a public road in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
It would be interesting to find out where you’ve got that ( innacurate ) information from.
Suggest you read back through every single post I’ve put on here and all will be explained in that regard.I certainly do still hold the ‘entitlement’ to the ‘licence’ which I held in class 2 form between 1980-1985 and class 1 form from 1985-2003 when it expired subject to the usual medical.Being that I went off the job on medical grounds before 2000 there was no need to get it renewed.
Hope that Helps.
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Slackbladder:
You call it bs while sat in your armchair, I do it 5 times a week sat in a MAN. As the driver in question managed to slaughter 2 cyclists in one go I would say he didn’t believe it at all, otherwise another preventable “accident” wouldnt have occurred. It would appear that, as this sort of thing happens rarely then most drivers are in fact able to avoid cyclists. The only difference is I would put it down to experience and you, well, as you don’t seem to think its possible to see a problem and act in time to avoid it, without getting right up behind it before pulling out, would put it down to blind luck. Just as well your not still on the roads I’m thinking.Firstly you seem to have as much understanding of what I meant by reducing speed to that required to maintain seperation distance behind a cyclist as you have about the national speed limit on dual carriageways as they apply to cars.Reading your ideas I think it’s you who seems to be all about maintaining speed and then just hoping that someone at the side of you would let you force your way into lane 2 before you flatten yet another lemming.
Here’s an idea why don’t you get on your bike and spend a week riding it once a day between London and Guildford in lane 1 of the A3 and see how long you’d last.Being that it’s legal for you to do so.
Strangely, I know a guy who commutes from Kent to Greenford every day by bicycle. He works for the Met Police Commercial Vehicle Unit - investigating HGV crashes. He has done so for sixteen years. He’s as fit as a fiddle and a ■■■■ good copper.
I’m fairly sure that narrows it down to one person.
I don’t know if he frequents these forums and I’m not about to name him, but if he does I’d love to hear his take.
Maybe he’d like to join in that challenge of riding a bike in lane 1 of the A3 between London and Guildford once a day for a week as it would be perfectly legal to do so. 
Carryfast:
Scanner:
Lest we forget.Carryfast does not hold a licence for the HGV he is referring to. If memory serves, he has never held one.
Carryfast, do you now or have you ever driven an articulated vehicle legally on a public road in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
It would be interesting to find out where you’ve got that ( innacurate ) information from.
Suggest you read back through every single post I’ve put on here and all will be explained in that regard.I certainly do still hold the ‘entitlement’ to the ‘licence’ which I held in class 2 form between 1980-1985 and class 1 form from 1985-2003 when it expired subject to the usual medical.Being that I went off the job on medical grounds before 2000 there was no need to get it renewed.
Hope that Helps.
Brilliant! Yeah but no but yeah but no.
You ever got a woman a little bit pregnant?
Carryfast:
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Slackbladder:
You call it bs while sat in your armchair, I do it 5 times a week sat in a MAN. As the driver in question managed to slaughter 2 cyclists in one go I would say he didn’t believe it at all, otherwise another preventable “accident” wouldnt have occurred. It would appear that, as this sort of thing happens rarely then most drivers are in fact able to avoid cyclists. The only difference is I would put it down to experience and you, well, as you don’t seem to think its possible to see a problem and act in time to avoid it, without getting right up behind it before pulling out, would put it down to blind luck. Just as well your not still on the roads I’m thinking.Firstly you seem to have as much understanding of what I meant by reducing speed to that required to maintain seperation distance behind a cyclist as you have about the national speed limit on dual carriageways as they apply to cars.Reading your ideas I think it’s you who seems to be all about maintaining speed and then just hoping that someone at the side of you would let you force your way into lane 2 before you flatten yet another lemming.
Here’s an idea why don’t you get on your bike and spend a week riding it once a day between London and Guildford in lane 1 of the A3 and see how long you’d last.Being that it’s legal for you to do so.
Strangely, I know a guy who commutes from Kent to Greenford every day by bicycle. He works for the Met Police Commercial Vehicle Unit - investigating HGV crashes. He has done so for sixteen years. He’s as fit as a fiddle and a ■■■■ good copper.
I’m fairly sure that narrows it down to one person.
I don’t know if he frequents these forums and I’m not about to name him, but if he does I’d love to hear his take.
Maybe he’d like to join in that challenge of riding a bike in lane 1 of the A3 between London and Guildford once a day for a week as it would be perfectly legal to do so.
I know another fellow who commutes on that route but starts from a lot further away. He’s nothing to do with the transport industry, he is still alive though. You can see him riding an old Peugeot racer any weekday on that stretch of road.
Elaboration: It’s a red framed ten-speed, with panniers and a real eighties look.
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Scanner:
Lest we forget.Carryfast does not hold a licence for the HGV he is referring to. If memory serves, he has never held one.
Carryfast, do you now or have you ever driven an articulated vehicle legally on a public road in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
It would be interesting to find out where you’ve got that ( innacurate ) information from.
Suggest you read back through every single post I’ve put on here and all will be explained in that regard.I certainly do still hold the ‘entitlement’ to the ‘licence’ which I held in class 2 form between 1980-1985 and class 1 form from 1985-2003 when it expired subject to the usual medical.Being that I went off the job on medical grounds before 2000 there was no need to get it renewed.
Hope that Helps.Brilliant! Yeah but no but yeah but no.
You ever got a woman a little bit pregnant?
Which part of yes didn’t you understand although you seem to have read through all those posts a bit quick which might explain it.
Carryfast:
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Scanner:
Lest we forget.Carryfast does not hold a licence for the HGV he is referring to. If memory serves, he has never held one.
Carryfast, do you now or have you ever driven an articulated vehicle legally on a public road in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
It would be interesting to find out where you’ve got that ( innacurate ) information from.
Suggest you read back through every single post I’ve put on here and all will be explained in that regard.I certainly do still hold the ‘entitlement’ to the ‘licence’ which I held in class 2 form between 1980-1985 and class 1 form from 1985-2003 when it expired subject to the usual medical.Being that I went off the job on medical grounds before 2000 there was no need to get it renewed.
Hope that Helps.Brilliant! Yeah but no but yeah but no.
You ever got a woman a little bit pregnant?
Which part of yes didn’t you understand although you seem to have read through all those posts a bit quick which might explain it.
Do you hold a valid C+E Licence or not?