doog442

Apologies a bit of a ramble : My post was in response to a scenario on vehicles and cyclists .The Highway code states that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others - the dreaded ' hierarchy '. I'm not sure how many motorists have been killed by cyclists for example. Your quote is indeed correct in relation to cyclists and pedestrians where the onus is on cyclists (the thread has wondered all over the place). As pedestrians we've all seen some idiot cycling as well. Clearly the hierarchy doesn't dissolve responsibility on cyclists in relation to all road users (including vehicles) and the HC specifically says that (backed up by several laws). We should all respect each other and I can honestly say that 99% of the time this happens. I often thank drivers for their patience, I let them pass on narrow roads when its safe for me to pull in, I acknowledge them, I make eye contact if I can and this is almost always reciprocated. Its the 1% that can mean the difference between life and death for a cyclist, the suicidal close pass, the door opening, the car pulling out without seeing you , the motorist distracted, on the phone, misted / iced up side windows, the speeding van, the school run mum who's late. That said we're all perhaps coming from different angles and experience. I don't live in a city centre, although I've cycled through many UK and European cities. I've seen the morning and evening cycling commutes in Strasbourg, Bonn, Munster, Lyon, Dusseldorf etc and its absolutely staggering in numbers. As a motorist I'm not dealing with that on a daily basis so yes I can understand the frustration of those who do when the infrastructure isn't quite up there . ps I've no idea what's happening with the layout of my post.

I wouldn't worry about it. We've been locking horns since Linas decided he could turn an IS220d into an ISF and probably long before that. My guess its one (of many) of those debates best avoided for the neutral...oh yeah and the ES.

Its a 14 miles stretch of road and you've made an assumption on a particular section of road based based on what exactly ? Notwithstanding the onus is always on the lorry driver to drive to the road conditions, so if the design is bad he drives accordingly. There is no excuse for a close pass with a lorry. If he had a camera I'd expect the driver to get a 'visit'.

You've twisted things from your earlier post . No cyclist wants a vehicle up its arse, especially one like you. However I ain't moving over unless its safe for me to do so, so you can wait until I decide when its safe for me to move over and the Highway code backs me up. You assume that cyclists don't drive, many do. Yet again another assumption. Not all but I'd wager the majority of regular commuting cyclists and leisure cyclists have passed their test. This is based on years of posting on cycling forums and just reading stuff. The issue is that kids cycle to school, kids cycle around the estate, however as you suggest anyone could jump on a bicycle and many do....these aren't the majority cycling from A to B or 'lycrad up' for work or leisure yet you appear to have some kind of problem in differentiating between them. If you kill a cyclist you will get arrested, tested for drugs, alcohol, fingerprints, photograph and DNA taken. You might be put in a cell. The investigation will decide who was in the wrong. I think of this every time I approach a junction, encounter a cyclist, pedestrian crossing the street or a child playing football on the street corner where the ball might run into road. Most cyclists don't want to get run over by you or a 40 ton HGV. Why you have this 'thing' that cyclists or pedestrians are putting themselves more at risk is beyond me. If you can accept that you may well have to take extra care when encountering both, the world really would be a better place. Likewise cyclists.

Its exactly the same. You as a driver are not in a position to decide if a cyclist thinks its safe for you to overtake. Good because it rarely happens. Are you saying that my 17 year old neighbour who passed her test last week is more qualified than experienced cyclists most of whom drive? Its nonsensical. There are guys on here who passed their driving test on a runway. You need to wake up and smell the roses. People read the highway code, pass their test and have no further qualifications for decades. They are in control of a machine that routinely kills and maims people. The duty of care is rightly on them. When were you ever stuck behind a cyclist for miles - complete hyperbole as usual. Very little has changed, accept it and move on. The onus is being put on you, vulnerable folk on foot or bicycles don't kill people

This is where you often lack perspective. A bicycle isn't a motor vehicle, it doesn't have the same mass, they very rarely kill people, they simply shouldn't be compared. Driver speed is a major factor in many UK road deaths yet you draw a comparison with cyclists running red lights? I agree that cyclists should obey red lights, however I also believe discretion should be built in as is happening elsewhere if its suitable and safe. For example the dispensation for allowing cyclists to go through no entry signs (when marked ) was a sensible step forward.

Just popped back to see how the thread was going ..no change.

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest the majority of cyclists disregard the rules Linas, behave now. You need to stop reading the Daily Mail. Look at the OP's petition to Parliament. The public are so enraged 112 people have signed it. Again you completely ignore the post I was responding to. The previous poster was using deaths as justification for GMP's initiative yet I politely pointed out that there aren't any. We can all be very selective in what we post to back up a point but it would help if it was accurate or indeed valid. I still fail to see any link between cyclists jumping red lights in Manchester city centre and some folk cycling around the country lanes of Kent other than the usual cyclist bashing exercise. Its like me making an analogy of drivers committing red light offences in Manchester and rural drivers in Kent doing nothing but driving from A to B. The latter has absolutely nothing to do with the former.

It's not an argument despite your desperation to get into one. I made a joke about Malc and I guess we thought the thread would die a death. Someone spots our little joke and escalates it into cyclists jumping red lights in a city centre 200 miles away and provide some scant evidence to prove their 'point'. I'm not sure that is ever a defence to dangerous / reckless driving. GMP are doing something about it - you should be happy.

Were these due to cyclists going through red lights or the myriad of other reasons why a cyclist may come into contact with a pedestrian (lawfully or not) Unless you can find more updated statistics than this? From the same article as yours Proportionally very few pedestrian casualties involve bicycles. From 2012 to 2016, 2,120 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle in Britain—0.8% of these involved a bicycle, and 66% involved a car. In 2016, 448 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle—three of these deaths involved a bike, and 289 involved a car. As I said its all about proportionality.

Very naughty and yes I can see the obvious link between red light jumping in Manchester City centre and the rural lanes of Kent ....no, I really can. Closer to home perhaps it was the news that 419 drivers were arrested in Kents recent road safety campaign - all drunk or drugged ? https://www.kent.police.uk/news/kent/latest/policing-news/more-than-400-arrests-during-december-road-safety-campaign/ As long as any operation is proportionate I've no issue with it, GMP are under special measures for failing to record 1 in 5 crimes and failing vulnerable victims so clearly they know their priorities.

Fear of a lunatic in a 95 LS400 more likely

There was an LC500 on here that had the same problem. It was replaced under warranty . I'm not sure they're correct saying it must be cracked or bumped as these things can fail in normal use or in my case straight from the factory.

Anyone with any substantial cash savings really should look at investing. Interest rates are also stupidly low compared to what some of us were used to. There are 10 year fixed mortgage rates available for 1.9% for example. These gas prices will come down eventually.

Please continue your cycling and country walks. (emoji thing)

Very good

I'm pretty sure I already stated on another thread the issues I saw with pedestrian guidance. I have absolutely no issue with the new cycling guidance in the Highway code. With all due respect unless you can make a judgement as a cyclist and motorist then you're hardly in a position to accuse me of being blinded.

Perhaps I'm quite emotional about the issue - how about that . If you didn't highlight the word entitles in the anti cyling post you were quoting I may well have drawn a different conclusion on Sowell. Peacocks tend to preen to attract attention which seems quite apt to the subject in question no ?

You may suggest it but like everything on this thread I'll continue to refute it 59 signatures now and only 2 from Wales, clearly they're an empathetic lot in the valleys.

I must admit I'm struggling to see a link between Mr Sowells quote and vulnerable road users ( which we all are as pedestrians for example). Perhaps I'm having a sense of humour failure When did this massive sense of entitlement become entrenched into one specific section of society (motorists) and why are some so embittered and reluctant to hand a small part back ?

You don't think the friction is helped by your derogatory words in your Initial post and also above? Now do I listen to an accredited cycling organisation or some youtube video Linas found on the Internet from a guy no one's heard of. If telling you the facts is being obtuse then so be it. There are also no semantics in my posts only those facts backed up with a whole load of personal knowledge and experience. You waxed lyrical about taking the cycling proficiency test yet now refuse to acknowledge the same. The advice is clear and only relates to certain situations. So why you have this in your mind that cyclists will be willy nilly clogging up the centre of lanes on roads is about as misinformed as your ill advised poll.

Clearly he doesn't speak for the majority of considerate road users as your national poll sits on 53 signatures. Only 9947 short of even getting a response. The above is from Cyclecraft. A nationally accredited and universally accepted publication linked with Bikability who replaced the cycling proficiency test and are the UK standard for cycle training . Note Primary position - riding in the centre of the lane improves visibility. It's the best option to deter unsafe passes, particularly in urban areas. This has been accepted practice for years and this is what cyclists are taught - where was your petition then ? The new HC adopts this advice as standard with specific emphasis on cyclists moving to secondary (the left) when a faster vehicle approaches or surrounding traffic increases in speed.

Great post.

Lexus dealers generally take the mick, classic example there. Perhaps we're seeing some movement as expected this time of year(a few RCF's have suddenly shifted in the last week), in my experience cost to change hasn't really changed over the last 24 months if you have something decent to chop in.

The dealer in question usually price their cars quite high (they're not that far from me). I've no idea if they have an in built margin for discount or if they a offer more than generous part ex thus reducing cost to change. They recently had a 2015 white RCF up for daft money but it's gone so perhaps it wasn't daft money in todays daft market.