From: mileburner on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> Maybe he couldn't find a safe place to stop! - remember cyclists can't
> pull over to the side of the road on some 22 mile stretches and they don't
> take up any space when stopped, so how can we expect a car to stop! Its
> not one rule for cars and another for cyclists, you know!

Err, he did stop, to allow passing of the oncoming traffic, but as soon as I
tried to get by he hosed me out by pulling away again.

> (My opinion is that, of course he should have stopped and let you pass,
> but then I think the same of a cyclist in that situation and I've been
> shot down in flames many times for stating that and suggesting that the
> DSA agree - regardless of vehicle (car, bike, truck) I've even quoted
> examples, and I've been shot down in flames again.)

And I too think that he should have pulled over to allow me to pass as a
cyclist should do so too, but only when it is safe to do so, and it is the
one who is pulling over who has to make that choice. The reality of this
particular situation probably was that the driver did not know I was there.
He was bumbling along a very quiet bumpy road chatting to his passenger. I
just thought it kinda ironic...

From: mileburner on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> Nobody mentioned slow moving and stationary queues - lets not move the
> goalposts! We were comparing journeys at 20mph vs 30mph. You said that
> 20mph would be faster due to slowing down for junctions and lights and the
> subsequent speeding up again.

Point of order. You made that bit up. If I am wrong about that please post
the message ID or a Google link and I will apologise and bow to your
superior knowledge. But I would wager you are not going to be posting any
message ID or url because YOU MADE IT UP :-( (again).

I disagreed and said that as you have to stop
> at various obstacles anyway, then travelling at 30mph between those
> obstacles will get you to your destination faster than if you travel at
> 20mph. You said it was blatantly obvious that 20mph would be faster than
> 30mph and I'm still waiting for you to explain this bizarre statement.
> Even if you do introduce extra features into the question, like queues and
> holdups, there is still no way that 20mph would get you there faster than
> 30mph, even if you only reach the magic 30mph for 10 seconds over a 1 day
> journey.

The dispute was that you claimed that you could travel the same *distance*
at 30mph, as you can at 20mph. You can't because you will need to speed up
and slow down, possibly with regularity.

From: mileburner on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message

> No, that was my personal opinion. I can't talk for anyone else on this
> matter. When I used the 'we' above it was in the context of a discussion
> and I was summarising everyone elses position against your world.

That will be the "Everyone Else Knows" argument...

I am always dubious of anyone who claims to speak on behalf of everyone

From: mileburner on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> wrote in message
> news:i2r08v$hek$1(a)
>> GT wrote:
>> No matter how much GT wants to think that the kerbs edge is safe for a
>> cyclist to wait at, if you combine it with a narrow road, two-way traffic
>> and larger vehicles the kerb-side is the very last place you want to be.
> No matter how much mileburner wants to think the the middle of the road is
> the best place to remain as a long queue of increasingly irate road users
> builds up behind them, stopped at the side of the road, leaning away from
> the traffic is simply much safer. Traffic would have to actually come
> within 2 inches of mounting the kerb to hit you!

Point one, there is not always a kerb. Point two, traffic does actually hit
kerbs. And passing traffic coming within inches is by no means very safe.

>> Example
>> I had an aggregate lorry coming up behind me moving quite fast. Checking
>> the road ahead was clear I pulled over and waved him by. He passed nice
>> and wide but quite fast. He was being tailgated by another aggregate
>> lorry who passed a lot closer. He also was being tailgated by another
>> aggregate lorry who passed so close that I do not think he saw me at the
>> side of the road, and neither did the car following him. I wished at that
>> point I had not let the first one pass and if I do that again I will make
>> sure there is somewhere safe to do so before pulling over.
> Or just pull over a bit further - or even stop at the side and lean away
> from the traffic like a normal cyclist would do - see above and the other
> dozens of posts from at various other contributors that suggest this!

Given the choice, I would rather follow the advice of the highway code and
pull over at the earliest convenient place.

From: mileburner on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>> Just because other motorists suggest it doesn't make it safe for the
>> cyclist.
> You have that back-to-front. People saying something doesn't make it safe,
> people are suggesting it *because* it is a safe place.

Not in my experience, most of my near misses and life threatening
experiences as a cyclist have been too close to the verge or kerb. You make
your choices and live or die by them.

You don't cycle much do you? <rhet.>