Scanner:
Own Account Driver:
Scanner:
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’s
Why are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
I’ve b**tardised* a Douglas Bader quote especially for you
“Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
*(this is not a swear word although filter thinks otherwise)
I’m aware of the saying and the meaning of the word you refer to.
However, Bader was referring to the breaking or bending of rules. I’m not.
You’re effectively trying to exploit the fact that something is legal, although you admit possibly unsafe, to pass reponsibility for your own safety on to other road users though. It’s the other side of the same coin.
I’m not exploiting anything or anyone, I’m riding a bicycle on a road that the law permits me to.
I haven’t admitted anything - what is there to admit? The difference between a statement of fact and an admission is vast.
Responsibility for my safety on the road is indeed encumbent upon other road users as well as myself. The law is unequivocal on this.
The difference is I am very unlikely to harm another road user (apart from pedestrians) whilst riding a bicycle. This is why cycling on the footpath is forbidden. In the absence of a cycle path I have no choice but to use the carriageway. Even where a cycle path is present, there is no requirement to use it.
Own Account Driver:
Scanner:
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’s
Why are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
I’ve b**tardised* a Douglas Bader quote especially for you
“Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
*(this is not a swear word although filter thinks otherwise)
There’s actually nothing legally stopping anyone from approaching the lights at this roundabout at 70 mph with a car or 50 mph with a loaded 44 tonner at this point.Wether the law in a marked police car would agree would be another matter if/when I run into a cyclist or whatever doing it having not been able to stop in time.No surprise the cyclists want double standards to be applied in the case of everyone else but not them when it comes to common sense and consideration for other road users regardless of what’s legal or not.
In this case treating fast dual carriageways differently to motorways in the case of them being used by cyclists and drivers of other very slow vehicles fits the same category as someone taking that speed limit at face value at that point.Obviously being that cyclists can’t work that out for themselves then the law obviously needs changing to get them off of dual carriageways.Or allow them to use motorways assuming that it’s considered safe by all concerned to mix fast dual carriageway traffic subject to the national limit with cyclists. 
maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.3 … .69,0,8.9
Scanner:
I’m not exploiting anything or anyone, I’m riding a bicycle on a road that the law permits me to.
I haven’t admitted anything - what is there to admit? The difference between a statement of fact and an admission is vast.
Responsibility for my safety on the road is indeed encumbent upon other road users as well as myself. The law is unequivocal on this.
The difference is I am very unlikely to harm another road user (apart from pedestrians) whilst riding a bicycle. This is why cycling on the footpath is forbidden. In the absence of a cycle path I have no choice but to use the carriageway. Even where a cycle path is present, there is no requirement to use it.
So are you saying that you would ride a cycle in lane 1 of a motorway assuming that it was made legal yes or no 
.
While if the logic of allowing cyclists to use fast dual carriageways is correct then why make it illegal for them to use motorways. 
Carryfast:
Own Account Driver:
Scanner:
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’s
Why are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
I’ve b**tardised* a Douglas Bader quote especially for you
“Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
*(this is not a swear word although filter thinks otherwise)
There’s actually nothing legally stopping me from approaching the lights at this roundabout at 70 mph with a car or 50 mph with a loaded 44 tonner at this point.Wether the law in a marked police car would agree would be another matter if/when I run into a cyclist or whatever doing it having not been able to stop in time.No surprise the cyclists want double standards to be applied in the case of everyone else but not them when it comes to common sense and consideration for other road users regardless of what’s legal or not.
In this case treating fast dual carriageways differently to motorways in the case of them being used by cyclists and drivers of other very slow vehicles fits the same category as someone taking that speed limit at face value at that point.Obviously being that cyclists can’t work that out for themselves then the law obviously needs changing to get them off of dual carriageways.Or allow them to use motorways assuming that it’s considered safe by all concerned to mix fast dual carriageway traffic subject to the national limit with cyclists.
maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.3 … .69,0,8.9
Nothing. Apart from the fact that you don’t hold a licence enabling you to legally drive a “loaded 44 tonner” on either the roundabout or the piece of road leading up to it, that is.
Carryfast:
Scanner:
I’m not exploiting anything or anyone, I’m riding a bicycle on a road that the law permits me to.
I haven’t admitted anything - what is there to admit? The difference between a statement of fact and an admission is vast.
Responsibility for my safety on the road is indeed encumbent upon other road users as well as myself. The law is unequivocal on this.
The difference is I am very unlikely to harm another road user (apart from pedestrians) whilst riding a bicycle. This is why cycling on the footpath is forbidden. In the absence of a cycle path I have no choice but to use the carriageway. Even where a cycle path is present, there is no requirement to use it.
So are you saying that you would ride a cycle in lane 1 of a motorway assuming that it was made legal yes or no .
While if the logic of allowing cyclists to use fast dual carriageways is correct then why make it illegal for them to use motorways.
Cycling, by definition cannot be legal on a motorway, for it is exactly that. A motor-way. A carriageway is also exactly that, a carriageway, a way for carriages. Obviously bicycles were invented after carriages and thence allowed to use them.
With progress came motor vehicles which were than allowed to share carriage-ways with carriages and bicycles. Later motorways were built exclusively for motors.
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Own Account Driver:
Scanner:
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’s
Why are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
I’ve b**tardised* a Douglas Bader quote especially for you
“Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
*(this is not a swear word although filter thinks otherwise)
There’s actually nothing legally stopping anyone from approaching the lights at this roundabout at 70 mph with a car or 50 mph with a loaded 44 tonner at this point.Wether the law in a marked police car would agree would be another matter if/when I run into a cyclist or whatever doing it having not been able to stop in time.No surprise the cyclists want double standards to be applied in the case of everyone else but not them when it comes to common sense and consideration for other road users regardless of what’s legal or not.
In this case treating fast dual carriageways differently to motorways in the case of them being used by cyclists and drivers of other very slow vehicles fits the same category as someone taking that speed limit at face value at that point.Obviously being that cyclists can’t work that out for themselves then the law obviously needs changing to get them off of dual carriageways.Or allow them to use motorways assuming that it’s considered safe by all concerned to mix fast dual carriageway traffic subject to the national limit with cyclists.
maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.3 … .69,0,8.9
Nothing. Apart from the fact that you don’t hold a licence enabling you to legally drive a “loaded 44 tonner” on either the roundabout or the piece of road leading up to it, that is.
Edited.I was actually referring to just the speed not literally personally holding valid licence.Although I’ve got enough experience and still the entitlement subject to medical to obviously know better than you let alone the total idiots who are running the nation’s road traffic regulations.
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Scanner:
I’m not exploiting anything or anyone, I’m riding a bicycle on a road that the law permits me to.
I haven’t admitted anything - what is there to admit? The difference between a statement of fact and an admission is vast.
Responsibility for my safety on the road is indeed encumbent upon other road users as well as myself. The law is unequivocal on this.
The difference is I am very unlikely to harm another road user (apart from pedestrians) whilst riding a bicycle. This is why cycling on the footpath is forbidden. In the absence of a cycle path I have no choice but to use the carriageway. Even where a cycle path is present, there is no requirement to use it.
So are you saying that you would ride a cycle in lane 1 of a motorway assuming that it was made legal yes or no .
While if the logic of allowing cyclists to use fast dual carriageways is correct then why make it illegal for them to use motorways.
Cycling, by definition cannot be legal on a motorway, for it is exactly that. A motor-way. A carriageway is also exactly that, a carriageway, a way for carriages. Obviously bicycles were invented after carriages and thence allowed to use them.
With progress came motor vehicles which were than allowed to share carriage-ways with carriages and bicycles. Later motorways were built exclusively for motors.
Believe it or not cyclists have been known to cycle in lane 1 of this road rather than use the hard shoulder because it’s their legal ‘right’ to do so all based on your,and the law’s,logic that it’s a ‘carriageway’ not a motorway.Although it was built long after the idea of so called ‘motorways’ had been introduced and long after the idea of motor vehicles sharing the so called ‘carriageway’ with so called ‘carriages’ and cycles.
maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.3 … 53,0,0.64
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Own Account Driver:
Scanner:
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’s
Why are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
I’ve b**tardised* a Douglas Bader quote especially for you
“Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
*(this is not a swear word although filter thinks otherwise)
There’s actually nothing legally stopping anyone from approaching the lights at this roundabout at 70 mph with a car or 50 mph with a loaded 44 tonner at this point.Wether the law in a marked police car would agree would be another matter if/when I run into a cyclist or whatever doing it having not been able to stop in time.No surprise the cyclists want double standards to be applied in the case of everyone else but not them when it comes to common sense and consideration for other road users regardless of what’s legal or not.
In this case treating fast dual carriageways differently to motorways in the case of them being used by cyclists and drivers of other very slow vehicles fits the same category as someone taking that speed limit at face value at that point.Obviously being that cyclists can’t work that out for themselves then the law obviously needs changing to get them off of dual carriageways.Or allow them to use motorways assuming that it’s considered safe by all concerned to mix fast dual carriageway traffic subject to the national limit with cyclists.
maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.3 … .69,0,8.9
Nothing. Apart from the fact that you don’t hold a licence enabling you to legally drive a “loaded 44 tonner” on either the roundabout or the piece of road leading up to it, that is.
Edited.I was actually referring to just the speed not literally personally holding valid licence.Although I’ve got enough experience and still the entitlement subject to medical to obviously know better than you let alone the total idiots who are running the nation’s road traffic regulations.
ISBN-13: 9781616144111
So are you saying that you’d ride a cycle in lane 1 of the example which I’ve posted or not or for that matter would you ride that Fireblade without decent safety clothing in addition to the crash helmet. .
Scanner:
I’m not exploiting anything or anyone, I’m riding a bicycle on a road that the law permits me to.
I haven’t admitted anything - what is there to admit? The difference between a statement of fact and an admission is vast.
Responsibility for my safety on the road is indeed encumbent upon other road users as well as myself. The law is unequivocal on this.
The difference is I am very unlikely to harm another road user (apart from pedestrians) whilst riding a bicycle. This is why cycling on the footpath is forbidden. In the absence of a cycle path I have no choice but to use the carriageway. Even where a cycle path is present, there is no requirement to use it.
You’re still effectively abdicating responsibility for your own personal safety to the eccentricities of the British statute book without offering any real evidence that doing so is prudent or wise.
In the case in question the journey wasn’t necessary, although obviously a worthy one, it’s effectively a recreational activity so, similarly with horse riding, there is a perfectly reasonable choice not to go on to busy roads if you feel it’s unsafe to do so.
You only have to have a few flakes of snow in this country and the enforcers of your beloved laws are announcing to everyone not to make journeys unless they are necessary.
It does frankly worry me that you’re probably not the only one out there, after the introduction of new laws and the over-zealous enforcement of various road traffic offences, has badly confused the laws of this country with some sort of all purpose health and safety risk assessment for the safety of citizens.
More cycle lanes should be built, and then make it compulsory to use them. Case in point being the Witney-Oxford stretch of the A40; Perfectly good cycleway, several (annoying) sets of traffic lights you can cross at, yet there are some who must ride on a busy trunk road because they’re in lycra or saving the planet. Or who drove/dawdled a pony and trap along it two weeks ago.
I’ll take care when passing you, but I’d rather you weren’t there as I don’t want a days’ holiday wasted, attending your inquest.
If you really want to wind up a time triallist, use your right of way at roundabouts, it upsets them considerably, a bit like a jogger who has to stop because you haven’t let them cross.
Firstly rip to the riders involved.
My opinion is attitude, and respect to other road users, is not up to standard .
On my across usa tour last year, i rode approx 20 mile on a motorway/highway, legally. In them 20 odd mile i had a wide shoulder(full of crap i admit), and encountered no problems, with all road users, most of it being freight.
Attitude and respect.
Rip
Scanner:
Cycling, by definition cannot be legal on a motorway, for it is exactly that. A motor-way. A carriageway is also exactly that, a carriageway, a way for carriages. Obviously bicycles were invented after carriages and thence allowed to use them.
With progress came motor vehicles which were than allowed to share carriage-ways with carriages and bicycles. Later motorways were built exclusively for motors.
I would agree with that. So then motor vehicles came along and carriageways were widened and made smooth with Tarmac and now we are at the bigoted opinion. That anything slower which have been using these carriageways much longer then any trucks now should be banned from using these roads.
Why? just because trucks are bigger and faster?
I know a lot of you are saying cyclists mixing with vehicles traveling at high speeds is dangerous, maybe then we should start lowering the speed limit on dual carriageways for motor vehicles!
Scanner:
chester:
Bicycles as such, eg two wheeled human powered have been using carriageways since the 1800’s
Why are CSI now calling for cycles to be banned where they can and have always been able to ride.
If you can’t see two cyclists on a dual carriageway whilst driving at 50mph do you think anyone is going to listen to your proposals to increase speed limits on single and dual carriageways for LGVs?
Exactly. I regularly cycle on the A406 and the A205, why? Because I’m using that piece of road to get from one place to another, legally. I don’t cycle on motorways because it’s illegal.
I also ride a 954 FireBlade. I wear whatever I feel like wearing when I’m riding it, plus the obligatory crash helmet. I don’t own flip-flops or shorts.
The point is, I’m not breaking the law in either case. The wisdom of my actions is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but like it or not, every other road user has a duty of care to me as I have to them.
I really don’t care if someone has to overtake me and they see it as an annoyance, if I was in a marked police car doing the same speed a lot more care would be taken around me.
The root of the problem is people taking the opportunity to bully someone who cannot possibly win.
+10
Two excellent posts here.Such a shame some others cannot see as clearly.
carryfast try to understand what is being said and if you do reply don’t go off on a tangent!
Absolutely tragic this case and being a driver and a keen cyclist myself I find some of the comments on this particular topic to be somewhat one sided against anyone especially cyclists using the carriageway. I’ve been on to a cycling forum I regularly visit in the midst of this tragic event and the consensus among a lot of the members is that cycling on dual carriageways is to be avoided, especially the one in this case. But the facts are that most traffic accidents occur on rural roads and not on dual carriageways or Motorways, so one could feasibly conclude with this fact in mind, that our roads are not safe in any shape or form unless you are a driver of a motor vehicle, and one that can at least travel at the speed limit for the road it is on or as close to it as defined by the traffic laws that may be in force for that respective vehicle for that road. So if you are a horse rider, a cyclist, a driver of a slow moving vehicle e.g agricultural or even a person on foot whether walking or jogging then you are henceforth unfit to use the road. Is this what some of you are advocating ? The ones that have never walked along a country road with no footpath? If I have learned anything especially on the road as a driver everyday, is to expect the unexpected. In this particular tragic case and not trying to condemn or condone the actions of any one involved, I question why the driver couldn’t see the cyclists, it’s not like it was on a rural road at a blind bend or the crest of a hill. You fellow drivers can speculate but without exception and I include myself here, we allow ourselves whether as a routine, occasionally or just simply a bad habits, to allow our standards as drivers to fall below what is expected, sometimes with tragic consequences. Being a cyclist those poor guys wouldn’t have known anything about their impending demise.
hipsway nice to read a logical an unbiased post I agree entirely with what you say.It saddens me that so many have a bad attitude towards cyclists.
There are to many with the attitude that they should not be there.
It is also a shame the cycle haters can never give a proper explanation of their views without resorting to abuse.You can just imagine what their driving is like.
Although I’m a mountain biker I still do a bit on the roads, but I wouldn’t ride on a dual carriageway, the same as I wouldn’t walk around an estate in canning town with a laptop in one hand and phone in the other after dark. Both perfectly legal and my right, but I don’t think either is very sensible.
I don’t really see the relevance of who was there first etc. I think people on horses on the road are a bit bonkers as well, I know several people who’ve been hospitalized when the horse has put full right hand down on!
R.I.P. to the cyclists
Lorn trakta:
chester:
Scanner:
Cycling, by definition cannot be legal on a motorway, for it is exactly that. A motor-way. A carriageway is also exactly that, a carriageway, a way for carriages. Obviously bicycles were invented after carriages and thence allowed to use them.
With progress came motor vehicles which were than allowed to share carriage-ways with carriages and bicycles. Later motorways were built exclusively for motors.
I would agree with that. So then motor vehicles came along and carriageways were widened and made smooth with Tarmac and now we are at the bigoted opinion. That anything slower which have been using these carriageways much longer then any trucks now should be banned from using these roads.
Why? just because trucks are bigger and faster?
I know a lot of you are saying cyclists mixing with vehicles traveling at high speeds is dangerous, maybe then we should start lowering the speed limit on dual carriageways for motor vehicles!
Yes you make so much sense, you have of course the mandate from the entire 60 million population to bring delivery speeds of every daily household need down to that of the horse and cart, don’t you?, and the incumbent hellish rise in price of every daily household need, you yourself are prepared to pay £15 for a loaf of bread and other fast decaying no longer fresh foods, etc are’t you?, how much of our now taken for granted everyday modern lives are you prepared to sacrifice on the alter of your passionate cycling crusades engaged in to fascilitate yours or others entertainment needs, parading as worthy causes, hell lets not put freight back on the rails lets put it back on the canals, horse drawn of course, blinkers are generaly worn to the sides of the eyes, you and your selfish legions appear to have them on full frontal.
Cycles and lorries are about as compatable for sharing the same strip of tarmac as powered hang gliders and jumbo jets being allowed to take off and land simultaneously on the same runway, regardless of how legal it might be I’d have no sympathy for the plight of the nutjob on the glider, and being legal isn’t the virtue of the righteous, I’m sure its legal for a shapely young female to walk around in the early hours of the morning in one of britains less than safe urban landscapes dressed only in a skimpy bikini, I’m sure you’d be the first to condemn her for her extreme foolhardy behaviour, legal or not.
I’m a veteran of 46 years cycling to and from work, not one of your statement making poncy crusader ‘look at me’ enviromental band waggoners, cycling was great till you ‘earth friends’ came along and made it controversial for the self serving sake of championing in the spotlight a ‘glorious’ enviromental battle where there is fact no war, I dont give a fig for yours or any other russian roulette players fate, keep pulling the trigger its your right, and for the record trucks preceded cycles by hundreds of years, they were powered and drawn by ox and horses, they evolved, whereas cyclists?.
^ This.
It seems obvious that the cyclist eco warriors are on a crusade to bring the nation’s motorised transport users down to their level by using roads which they know aren’t suited to cycling.Going by their logic there’s be no point in wasting loads of money on building fast modern dual carriageways because no one should be driving anything over 30 mph anyway.