Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: boltar2003 on 29 Mar 2010 08:43 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:13 +0100 Happi Monday <happi(a)munday.com> wrote: >>> Slamming on the brakes in front of a cyclist is not realy acceptable >>> either. >> >> Neither is deliberately obstructing the road, is it? > >The tandem is entitled to use the road - just 'coz he's in front, >doesn't make him an obstruction, at least, not in the sense it is being >used. It does if they can move over to let traffic pass but decide not to when theres no good reason for them to stay in the middle of the lane (eg potholes parked cars). There was none of the above at this junction and we're not talking a couple of seconds here, they sat in the middle for a good 30 seconds before deigning to move over. Only oncoming traffic prevented me from passing them which was probably lucky for them as I wouldn't have given them much of a wide berth if I had. B2003
From: Clive George on 29 Mar 2010 08:50 On 29/03/2010 13:43, boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:13 +0100 > Happi Monday<happi(a)munday.com> wrote: >>>> Slamming on the brakes in front of a cyclist is not realy acceptable >>>> either. >>> >>> Neither is deliberately obstructing the road, is it? >> >> The tandem is entitled to use the road - just 'coz he's in front, >> doesn't make him an obstruction, at least, not in the sense it is being >> used. > > It does if they can move over to let traffic pass but decide not to when > theres no good reason for them to stay in the middle of the lane (eg potholes > parked cars). There was none of the above at this junction and we're not > talking a couple of seconds here, they sat in the middle for a good 30 seconds > before deigning to move over. Only oncoming traffic prevented me from > passing them which was probably lucky for them as I wouldn't have given > them much of a wide berth if I had. I think you've just discovered why they were riding where they were - to stop you doing a dangerous overtake.
From: Brimstone on 29 Mar 2010 08:52 "Happi Monday" <happi(a)munday.com> wrote in message news:hoq4tg$k0d$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On 29/03/2010 10:44, boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:35:17 +0200 >> "GeoffC"<me(a)home.invalid.com> wrote: >>> boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >>>> I was sitting at some lights on the A22 (not exactly a minor road) >>>> when a couple on a Tandem come past and stop. Not to the side, oh no. >>>> They stop right bang in front of me. Unsurprisingly when the lights >>>> go green me and >>>> all the traffic behind are now slooowly accelerating to a heady speed >>>> of 15mph and its only when I hammer the horn that these pair of >>>> tossers move over and I look in the mirror and the bloke at the front >>>> is laughing. I was sorely tempted to slam on the brakes and see how >>>> funny he thought it was then. >>>> >>> >>> So how do you know what he was laughing at? >> >> Well since he was looking at me its a fair guess what it was. >> >>> Do you often have a tendency towards road-rage? >> >> When people deliberately obstruct me for no good reason when I'm already >> late picking someone up from Gatwick - yes. > > Organise yourself and leave earlier. How does that work when the appointment has been brought forward? > You need to chill a little - you're turning into another Madway Handjob. He's been ranting and raving for years.
From: David on 29 Mar 2010 09:22 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:hoq47n$j44$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:36:32 +0100 > "David" <none(a)selectfire.co.uk> wrote: >><boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message >>news:hopt8k$65t$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >>>>Would I be correct in inferring there was an advanced stop line? >>> >>> There was >> >>Conveniently failed to mention that did we? > > Its of no consequence. An advanced stop line is just that , its not a > "block > the traffic once the lights have gone green" line. He was blocking the traffic no more than any other vehicle. If you knew how to drive you'd know that you have to pull into the adjacent lane to over take. Whether it be a Ferrari, a bicycle or a milk float.
From: mileburner on 29 Mar 2010 09:34
<boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:hoq78r$ol8$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:13 +0100 > Happi Monday <happi(a)munday.com> wrote: >>>> Slamming on the brakes in front of a cyclist is not realy acceptable >>>> either. >>> >>> Neither is deliberately obstructing the road, is it? >> >>The tandem is entitled to use the road - just 'coz he's in front, >>doesn't make him an obstruction, at least, not in the sense it is being >>used. > > It does if they can move over to let traffic pass but decide not to when > theres no good reason for them to stay in the middle of the lane (eg > potholes > parked cars). There was none of the above at this junction and we're not > talking a couple of seconds here, they sat in the middle for a good 30 > seconds > before deigning to move over. Only oncoming traffic prevented me from > passing them which was probably lucky for them as I wouldn't have given > them much of a wide berth if I had. Oncoming traffic is a very good reason to take the centre of the lane and to block traffic from overtaking if the road is too narrow. Also, when riding through a junction, it is best to take the centre of the lane to ensure that the traffic cannot overtake until clear of the junction and the hazards that are with it. It sounds like Mr Tandem did everything correct but was victim to an angry driver who was running too late to be courteous :-( |