Shouted at for cycling two abreast

[Dave Davenport]

Out on the club run this morning, about 15 in my group going along a wide, straight country b road in pairs and get 'SINGLE FILE!!! You're giving cyclists a bad name!' shouted at us by two guys coming the other way. WTF???!!!

 

[Paulus]

They haven't read the highway code in the last 40 years or so then. You are allowed to ride two abreast if the carrigeway allows enough space for vehicles to overtake if neccessary. Rule 66 is the kiddy. Would they shout at the Sky team if they met them on the road? Maybe.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

 

[Saddle bum]

They haven't read the highway code in the last 40 years or so then. You are allowed to ride two abreast if the carrigeway allows enough space for vehicles to overtake if neccessary. Rule 66 is the kiddy. Would they shout at the Sky team if they met them on the road? Maybe.

http://www.direct.go...ycode/DG_069837

Wot 'e said.

 

[vernon]

I was cycling with a pal in York when he suddenly veered of the road an onto a cycle path on the pavement and then called me to join him as I was giving cyclists a bad name by 'using the road when a perfectly good alternative was available'.

I wanted to smack him round the head and point out the error of his ways.

 

[snorri]

I wanted to smack him round the head and point out the error of his ways.

The old ways are so often best.

 

[MontyVeda]

it's always the cyclists that give cyclists a bad name.

 

[TVC]

it's always the cyclists that give cyclists a bad name.

Glad you mention that, I was returning from my ride today over the last mile or so along The Great Central Way, a shared use path running into Leicester. By chance I arrived at the start of it with another cyclist. We nodded, chatted, but every time we met someone coming the other way he rode on the right hand edge of the path and made the other person move over to our left, cyclist, pedestrian or in one case a small kid wobbling on their first bike.

Then he blurted, "Don't they know, it's pedestrians on the left and cyclists on the right!"

WTF!!! as long as I've ridden on that path everyone goes to the left, just like on the road and everyone is happy.

I dropped back and let him go alone, what a knib.

 

[vernon]

WTF!!! as long as I've ridden on that path everyone goes to the left, just like on the road and everyone is happy.

I dropped back and let him go alone, what a knib.

It would help if there was some sort of signage. I bet a lot of cyclists on cycle paths have never cycled on the road and think that road based conventions should not apply to off road routes.

 

[TVC]

It would help if there was some sort of signage. I bet a lot of cyclists on cycle paths have never cycled on the road and think that road based conventions should not apply to off road routes.

What got me more was that he was making kids and old ladies move out of his way, just rude.

 

[MontyVeda]

...

WTF!!! as long as I've ridden on that path everyone goes to the left, just like on the road and everyone is happy.

...

It's a general rule of thumb the goes unnoticed by so many... who needs signs when we've (supposedly) got common sense?

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

No, cyclists are definitely meant to pass overhead...or is that only with joggers?

No, they're definitely supposed to pass overhead...

 

[coffeejo]

I thought the government had thrown the Highway Code out of the window?

 

[vernon]

It's a general rule of thumb the goes unnoticed by so many... who needs signs when we've (supposedly) got common sense?

OBITUARY: THE SAD PASSING OF COMMON SENSE
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned, but overbearing, regulations were set in place.

Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teenagers suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition. Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they had themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer paracetamol, sun lotion or plaster to a pupil, but could not inform the parents when a pupil became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home, but the burglar could sue you for assault because you protected yourself and your own.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim. Not many attended his funeral because so few realised that he was gone.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Common sense is all well and good - it's probably a deeply benign influence, all things considered - but it would never have invented the unicycle.

 

[atbman]

Vernon, regarding "Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement."

The general reporting and repeating of this case demonstrates that prejudice gets in the way of the facts, especially when the false story is so tempting.

Try reading the facts of the case on http://www.jtexconsu...11N1/Coffee.pdf - amongst which are the following

1. (The rumors of Liebeck spilling her coffee while driving were inaccurate.​
   ​
   ​
   ​
   11 The car was not moving, and she was not driving.) While parked, Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup.12 As she attempted to remove the lid, the contents of the cup spilled onto her lap.13 The coffee was estimated to be somewhere between 180 to 190 degrees.14 Ms. Liebeck was wearing sweatpants that day, which absorbed the scorching coffee, holding it next to her skin.15 A vascular surgeon diagnosed Liebeck as having suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns)16 over her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.17 These third degree burns extended through to Liebeck’s subcutaneous fat, muscle, or bone.18 While she was hospitalized for eight days, Liebeck underwent skin grafting, and later underwent debridement19 treatments.20 Liebeck was permanently disfigured and disabled for two years as a result of this incident.21​
2. Evidence at trial was simply damning. It was learned that McDonald’s was aware of more than 700 claims brought against it between 1982 and 1992 due to people being burned by its coffee.​
   ​
   ​
   ​
   34 Some of these claims involved third-degree burns that were substantially similar to the burns suffered by Liebeck.35 Moreover, McDonald’s had previously spent over $500,000 in settling these prior coffee-burn claims.36 In spite of the knowledge of these claims and this inherent danger with its coffee, McDonald’s refused to change its corporate policy and serve its coffee at a safer temperature.37​
3. ​
   ​
   ​
   ​
   McDonald’s own quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s enforced a policy requirement that all coffee be served at 185 degrees, give or take five degrees.38 He also admitted that its coffee was not “fit for consumption” because it would cause scalding injuries to the mouth and throat if drunk by the consumer.39​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Q: [Y]ou know, as a matter of fact, that coffee is a hazard, selling it at 180 to 190 degrees, don’t you?​

A: I have testified before, the fact that this coffee can cause burns.​

Q: It is hazardous at this temperature?​

A: At that high temperature the coffee is a hazard.​

Q: If customers attempt to swallow that coffee, isn’t it a fact that it will scald their throat or esophagus?​

A: Yes, under those conditions, if they could get the coffee in their throat, that could happen, yes.​

Confession: before I read this, I followed the crowd and jeered at idiot Anericans suing for no reason.​

Please read the rest of the document. Especially the bit where they tried to argue that, since coffee at 130F can scald you, it didn't really matter that it was even hotter.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​