Don't always blame the motorist.

[ufkacbln]

Well I never did! Ten pages! Who'd have thunk it :-)

Question is....

Are the pages in single file or read side by side?

 

[Mugshot]

I blame the usual suspects, you know who you are you bounders!

Edited as the swear filter didn't filter me and I actually wanted it to.

 

[screenman]

Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.

• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

 

[Mugshot]

Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.

• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

It strikes me as being pretty much the opposite of what you should be doing, at least two of those sound like situations where I'd be looking at primary, so why not double up?

 

[Mugshot]

I don't think they do. Sometimes people referred to as one of "the usual suspects" uses the term to refer to other people who, most confusingly it must be said, are one of the ones who used it in the first place. Perhaps Thatcher was right, and there is no such thing as society.

I just wish someone would tell me who "they" were, i suppose its one of those if you have to ask situations.

 

[Profpointy]

Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.

• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

it's good advicefor not inconveniencing motorists, particalarly if they want to squeeze through. It's often damgerous advice for cyclists

 

[glasgowcyclist]

i love this forum, the resident offence takers are hilarious! Does CC keep them in a cage, feeding them bread, water and a sprinkling of otherness?

Who's taken offence?

GC

 

[bonsaibilly]

Like much in the HC, it seems to have been written by motorists. The reasons why not to do this have been explained up thread.

Yes I know, I've read the thread. The point I was making was, you quoted the HC as if that put an end to the matter. Whereas you can clearly see it also offers advice which contradicts the assertion you're supporting. You can't have your cake and eat it - either you follow the HC and that means all of it, or you don't, but you shouldn't pick and choose only the bits that support your proposition.

BB

 

[bonsaibilly]

Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.

• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

That's because cyclists, like all people, prefer to ignore the things that don't fit in with their own view. BB

 

[bonsaibilly]

Nonsense, it isn't handed down from above chiselled on granite. I can evaluate parts as sensible and others not so on their merits.

Maybe you feel you can. However, I would maintain that a post that says simply eg "Ok everyone let's just remember what the the Highway Code says for a minute yeah" and then quotes a fragment of it as if that therefore negates any other point of view, falls on their sword if another section of the afore-relied-on documentary evidence contradicts their thinking.

By the same logic, your opponent can simply quote the bit I quoted on its own, as if it it's incontrovertible by virtue of being in the Code, and assume a position of unarguable right. You will agree that that is ridiculous; so is your original post making use of the fragment you used. That is the point I'm making - not whether your opinions were right, but that *that* line of your argument was/is ridiculous.

Having removed it thus from the discussion, everyone can get on with the rest of the intractable debate.

BB

 

[bonsaibilly]

Yeah, smart idea, remove one useful thing.

It isn't useful within the scope of the debate. In fact it left your "side" open to rebuttal so you would do better not to rely on it any longer. Bb

 

[growingvegetables]

Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.

• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

I'll stick my neck out - there's nothing actually wrong with the wording.

But ... it is not, and was never intended to be, a blanket legal prohibition. It does not absolve cyclists from reading the road, assessing risks, taking well-thought-out and rational decisions about their road position, and riding assertively when necessary to protect their own safety. It is a "should". That's advice and guidance.

Lordy - if it had any stronger weight, can you imagine how many road-users would fall down on the second sentence in the HC! "The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other."

 

[Brandane]

Hmmmmmm; make your mind up about the Highway Code?

OK enough. Let's just remind ourselves about the highway code
View attachment 127779

Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.

• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

Like much in the HC, it seems to have been written by motorists. The reasons why not to do this have been explained up thread.

 

[bonsaibilly]

Anything and everything is open to rebuttal. It is the quality and substance thereof that counts. In this instance the space argument counts way more than the erroneous advice to single out. If this is not clear, try reading from the top until it is.

Lol, you're just not getting it are you? Actually I'm on the side of the cyclists in this debate but my point continues to be, not what is or isn't right, but that you can't rely on something for one piece of supporting evidence and then ignore other bits that don't support your argument. I'm sure you know this really but probably don't want to admit it. Bb

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Nobody seems to have commented on this posted earlier.

• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

and narrow is defined where and how?

As to OP the road, as described, where it is possible for two cars to pass each other, even if only just so, is not, by any South London bus passenger standard, a narrow road....