It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Cyclists Stopped By Police

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Audi drivers are just wannabe BMW (Braindead Moron's Wheels) drivers.
a reply to: crazyewok




posted on May, 29 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

Bang on!



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: Imagewerx
Is it really too much to ask that you do slow down,indicate and only go past them when it's safe to do so instead of being impatient and saving maybe ten seconds off your total journey time?


You missed the point didn't you?

I completely agree with what you say above but disagree with cyclists (horses) who cannot ride single file to eliminate the problems they can cause others with their selfishness.

Also...why would there be "walkers" in the road? Big no-no.


No I haven't missed the point at all. I've been driving for long enough to have learnt that being impatient won't get me anywhere any quicker than if I just go with the flow and accept that driving on a public road never will be the most efficient way to get from A to B. It doesn't matter how many slightly slower cars you overtake,there will always be an infinite number more on the road ahead of you that will also hold you up and slightly reduce your average journey time.I never see horses riding in anything more than single file,and I can't remember seeing cyclists riding more than two abreast as advised by the highway code.I have also observed that in most cases (but not all) the cyclists do go to riding in single file while car's over take them and then return to two abreast when the danger has passed.

There could be walkers in the road for lots of reasons.First of all it's not illegal to walk in the road in the UK (unless of course it's a motorway),but pedestrians who have to walk in the road are advised to walk on the side that has them facing oncoming traffic,that way you can make eye contact with the driver (if they're paying attention to the road in front of them) and become aware of each other and act accordingly.

Hikers/ramblers/scouts/guides can and do walk in the road if there is no verge to walk on.What happens when your car has broken down on a country lane,you have no phone signal and there aren't any houses you can knock on the door of to ask to use their phone? You have no choice but to walk at the very edge of the road.Most road walkers do this and will stop and squeeze in as close as possible to the hedge (or what ever is by the side of the road) while the car passes them,and then move out and carry on walking when the hazard (the car) has passed by.

What's dangerous to everyone as has already been stated are these minority groups who are seemingly oblivious to other road users and the danger this presents.Most cyclists are also car drivers and are aware of how vulnerable they are when they're on their bike and do act accordingly,while the minority don't. Horse riders who are too young to have a driving licence and therefore no road sense and aren't always (if ever) in full control of their horses are the most dangerous group of road users without any exception.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Imagewerx

It's also a sensible strategy on winding country lanes. Some drivers get impatient and overtake too closely with bends approaching. By going two abreast, it restricts reckless drivers from overtaking and potentially having to move inwards to avoid oncoming traffic.

Some are simply oblivious and enjoy chatting while 20 cars are strung out behind them doing 15mph. Even tractors pull over to avoid impeding the flow of traffic.


I blame Wiggins.


They all look like there geared up for the Tour de France as well:-/

I think us car drivers should dress up as formular one racers just to fit in with them



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
My, my, where do you guys live? Round here when the cyclists are out two abreast, Oh the luxury of that. When there're out it's usually 10 or 15 in a clump, usually 4 abreast and god forbid if you try and "interact" with them.
Two abreast, pah, go behind one another or better still "slip stream" one another!!!!! Have you ever tried to overtake 10 or 15 bikes in single file all trying to keep a couple of inches from the one in front?
Now THAT will make you mad. The word inconsiderate is not the strongest word I would use.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The police did the right thing here. The cyclists clearly showed no common sense, given that they would have been aware that drivers were piling up behind them. The police stopped them for everyones safety, and to avoid further congestion.
Cyclists are becoming parasites on UK roads (and pavements) and show no consideration for anyone but themselves.
I have been hit by cyclists who unlawfully cycle on pavements. I have also seen them cycling no handed whist using mobile phones.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I am not surprised in the least by that. There are as many aholes on cycles as their are in cars.
a reply to: stormcell



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Most motorists are not cyclists, but most cyclists are motorists. I agree with keeping a cool head. One of the main reasons cyclists ride two abreast is because they have the right to by law to take the road (even riding solo) when there is anything that could harm their body or their property. On a bike, you can see road hazards like gravel, glass, potholes, etc. People driving cars just don't see that. Also, the speed limit is just that. The maximum limit. Lets say in a park the speed limit is 15mph, which is easily obtainable by a cyclist. They have the legal right to take the whole lane. Also, it is legal to take the lane if it is a substandard width and it would be too dangerous for a car to pass. I was always aware when there were cars behind me and always looked for a safe place to move over and let the cars pass. I'm a survivor of a horrible experience of riding alone and being hit from behind by a cement truck. My lawyers investigator proved from my axle being driving into the pavement by the trucks wheel that I was riding 3 inches from the side of the road. That was 28 years ago and I'm typing this with incredible back pain that I've had ever since that day.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: sayzaar
The police did the right thing here. The cyclists clearly showed no common sense, given that they would have been aware that drivers were piling up behind them. The police stopped them for everyones safety, and to avoid further congestion.
Cyclists are becoming parasites on UK roads (and pavements) and show no consideration for anyone but themselves.
I have been hit by cyclists who unlawfully cycle on pavements. I have also seen them cycling no handed whist using mobile phones.


Again, do you know the law in the UK? I am very well versed in the law where I am.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
This is a great site which explains a lot.

bicyclesafe.com...



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
That officer needs to be... not an officer of the law anymore, for the simple fact of not knowing the law he is paid to enforce. Trying to state something as law, when its not should be grounds for automatic termination from the police force. I would much rather they admit that their knowledge in a particular area is lacking, and radio for clarification, than for them to "invent" laws.

He was right to pull them over, but it should only have been for an advisory about their behaviour. Not to try and claim they were breaking the law, when they weren't. Hopefully his superintendent will pull him off active patrol duties for a week or two pending retraining on what the law ACTUALLY says.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: nerbot


edit on 2 6 2017 by Kester because: Answered wrong comment.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: nerbot




. . . why would there be "walkers" in the road?


The roads are for everyone.
edit on 2 6 2017 by Kester because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: BeenieWeenie

Sorry to hear about your injury. Reading your comment made me shiver. I pictured the lorry wheel that passed inches from me one time. My camera was in a waterproof case and didn't usually pick up sound but that time you could hear me screaming obscenities quite clearly.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: BMorris

He could have done better but he was probably thinking about the blood and guts he's had to clear up in the past as part of his job.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: BeenieWeenie

Bookmarked with gratitude.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

The cyclists are very much correct and from what I know of our (UK) traffic laws, they were fine. And it makes sense; two abreast (on non windy country lanes) helps increase visibility, etc.

However, I still maintain that our (UK) roads were never designed for cyclists *and* cars to traverse at the same time. It's fairly rare where I live to have straight roads or roads where you can easily see ahead. Instead, they are all country, windy lanes which advertise the national speed limit (60mph) which, even though I am legally allowed to drive at that speed down them, is very dangerous.

You can't see above the hedge rows, or around the windy corners or hilly bits. Why anyone would want to cycle down them, knowing how dangerous it is, is beyond me...



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme




. . . (UK) roads were never designed for cyclists *and* cars . . .


And the cycle lanes were designed on paper to tick boxes, not designed for cyclists to cycle on.



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Exactly. They have added 'cycle' lanes in some places where I am but, like you said, it seems more of a paper tick exercise.

I used to frequent Amsterdam (not in that way..) years ago and was always amazed at how well they got it right and how cycling was ingrained into their systems.

Just painting lines on the left hand road side saying 'cycles' doesn't really ensure safety for anyone. In my opinion, cycle lanes should ne dedicated and removed away from the road traffic so they are isolated. Not sharing it with pavements (sidewalks here in the UK) -- dedicated cycle lanes.

But of course, who will pay and where will it come from springs to mind.. :|



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
What on Planet Earth happened to cyclists? When I was a kid you got trained up by that cycling proficiency whatever the word is course and it taught you how to behave on the roads. Was it single file and nine inched from the curb? Whatever it was things have gone out the window these days. As someone else said that Bradley wiggins has a lot to answer for. Millions of fat men in lycra riding the bikes like they are training for the olympics, riding TWO ABREAST! Even at ten (knowing the law) you knew it was a mad idea to ride two abreast on yer Raleigh Ultraburner as there was a good chance a you'd piss drivers off and b be hit by a car.

Humans = monkeys and in a troop they seem to be getting more aggressive all the time when they dress in lycra and get on the latest light weight frame. What is going on? You never saw the Dawes Galaxy crowd acting like this 20 year ago. What's changed? It's like a spell has been cast on anyone who gets the lyrca on...........................



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join