# take a test??



## donnymac (25 Mar 2008)

hi guys.
i think everyone who uses the public roads should take a test
on the highway code every five years.
whats your thoughts??
don


----------



## BentMikey (25 Mar 2008)

*Sniffs*

I smell trollshit.


----------



## sadjack (25 Mar 2008)

I thoroughly agree with you Don.

Perhaps those that answer that roundabouts are in fact race tracks could be forced to re-take their driving test!!


----------



## donnymac (25 Mar 2008)

who said anything about peds..
its not the peds i worry about its the other road users


----------



## 4F (25 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> who said anything about peds..
> its not the peds i worry about its the other road users



But peds cross roads so are technically road users. What would the test be for horses ??


----------



## gambatte (25 Mar 2008)

In Sheff M'cyclists are in legally. Its not till becoming a cyclist I actually got and read a HC since passing my test. 20 years. Guess I wasn't that unusual - I see loads of drivers that don't understand cycle lanes, advance stop lines, red lights, speed limits......


----------



## gambatte (25 Mar 2008)

Donnymac - you may be genuine, if so bear with us. 

One of our number has come under fire recently by people who don't like their cr4p driving highlighted on Utube. We're expecting some cyberstalking trolls to appear.

It seems the timing of your appearance may have aroused some suspicion.


----------



## Aperitif (25 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> hi guys.
> i think everyone who uses the public roads should take a test
> on the highway code every five years.
> whats your thoughts??
> don



Hi don. I assume you have had a run in with a lousy motorist or perhaps a scooter rider (blo0dy nuisance in London I have to say - no consideration whatsoever for the human powered cyclists like you and me.)
Tell us what leads you to promote this interesting idea - there are many reasonable voices on here with informed comment; I'm sure they can help you.

Welcome.


----------



## HJ (25 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> who said anything about peds..
> its not the peds i worry about its the other road users



Peds are road users too...


----------



## PrettyboyTim (25 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> *Sniffs*
> 
> I smell trollshit.



Easy, Tiger!

Give the new guy a chance!


----------



## jmaccyd (25 Mar 2008)

Indeed, the HC is relevant to peds, cyclists, horse riders, motorists and motorcyclists


----------



## Maz (25 Mar 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> What would the test be for horses ??


I think it would be to correctly identify this road sign.


----------



## neslon (25 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> hi guys.
> i think everyone who uses the public roads should take a test
> on the highway code every five years.
> whats your thoughts??
> don



I do - its called MIDAS and everyone who drives a minibus not-for-profit has do do so (or similar). Anyway, Don, you seem to be assuming that the people who cycle can't/don't drive. I prefer not to, as the health & well-being benefits are enormous, as is the sense of satisfaction gained from getting places under my own steam. However, there are occasions when I have to use my Impreza, or the missus's V70, or the camper......

All of which are taxed


----------



## snorri (25 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> whats your thoughts??



A waste of time and money.


----------



## zimzum42 (26 Mar 2008)

You should only be allowed out if you've got a PhD.....


----------



## Trillian (26 Mar 2008)

neslon said:


> I do - its called MIDAS and everyone who drives a minibus not-for-profit has do do so (or similar).



don't have to to MIDAS, it depends on if its entailed to your job, for example a teacher does need a MIDAS test. I drive for my church, I don't need one
I also drive for my uni's student union, i've got MIDAS for insurance cost reasons.


----------



## Terminator (26 Mar 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> Easy, Tiger!
> 
> Give the new guy a chance!



I hope mikey sn't getting worried.I didnt think his riding was that bad


----------



## bianco (26 Mar 2008)

And what would we do to penalise those who fail?

Ban them from the roads until they pass?

Even drivers who pay "road tax" and passed their test 24.5 years ago?

Please give us something to work with!


----------



## summerdays (26 Mar 2008)

I'd be all for it... or even better just get the police stop everyone who is observed not following the highway code to have to sit a test... and that would include RLJ'ers (2 and 4+ wheeled) and those using the bus lane etc. But it would cost a lot to operate ... could charge each person £10 everytime they had to sit it ... some people could then pay through the nose!!!

Lots of adults don't have the foggiest what some of the road signs mean ... I know of someone who thinks there is a sign for a church - sort of a cross shape. Lots of no-parking cones were put on the road near my house ... all the residents didn't park and then were really annoyed by all the cars who did park there instead. 

Only problem being with the highway code is not all of it is law ... some of it is only advice so you could say folk don't need to know those bits and therefore couldn't be tested on it.


----------



## Joe24 (26 Mar 2008)

Not sure about the test every 5 years. You can drive well for that test then go back to your bad driving. Which will be what will happen. 
Reading the highway code again might help, the fact they have to sit there and read it is boring. But my brothers have both passed their driving tests and when i asked if they had read the sections on cycling they said no. A test on the computer i think would be better. But all road users? thats just crazy.


----------



## Arch (26 Mar 2008)

Actually, i would like to see people tested more regualrly, and if there was a way to cover cyclists and pedestrians, I'd be happy to see that too. Ideally, I'd like all drivers to retake a test every 5 years or so. But I think that would be expensive and no government would bring it in. But a paper based test would have some benefits I think. OK, it wouldn't weed out all bad drivers, and some would just mug up, pass and then carry on ignoring the rules. But I think it might jolt some people, if they realised they didn't know something. I don't know that you could ban them until they passed (and how do you do that to cyclists and peds?) but just the act of taking the test, and realising you needed to know more, might improve some people, make them think about the rules a bit more.

How about running it alongside the census? Cover the whole population (all over 16's perhaps), every 10 years. Fails get a letter telling them they failed and what on (which could be fairly effectively done by computer). Not just the HC, but a general knowledge about roadcraft test. 

Or do it on telly. Harder to make it compulsory of course, but I'd love to see one of those 'test the nation' shows cover roadcraft and safety. People love a quiz, and it hits them where it hurts, in the egos. Also, you have the opportunity to explain WHY the rules are what they are. People bother less if they think someone is just telling them to do stuff for the sake of it.


----------



## Trillian (26 Mar 2008)

if i remember correctly there is a 2 year probation on new drivers, 6 points and you loose your licence

when you loose your licence generally you should have to re-take your full driving test, my mum passed in the early 70's, the driving test has changed lots since (theory and hazard perception being added - i passed just before hazard perception) but if she lost her licence due to points or a ban from driving I think she should have to (myself too but my mum is a better example) do the full driving, theory and hazard perception) i think this would put some people off due to the cost and hassle

[joke]
the other option is to keep a bucket of hammers in the passenger foot space, then when someone is being a muppet you can lob hammers at them, the result will either be:

they will crash, and one less muppet on the road

or 

"woah, my driving must be really bad if people are throwing hammers at me"

[/joke]

my pet hates when driving, especially when i'm driving something big and semi indestructible such as my uncles landrover are, people who cut me up while they're on the phone

people who go straight on at roundabouts in the left lane of the roundabout (ok, its allowed on the one i'm thinking of) past two exits (one of which i'm entering the roundabout from) while indicating left all the way round it!

i've nearly lost my car due to this, their road positioning and signaling implied they were going down the road i was on, so i went

its so tempting in the landy to just go, knowing that my vehicle will survive and the person driving like a prat will have to claim on their insurance
its proving it that would be the problem

i'd also quite like to bumper tap people on mobile phones

I do however restrain myself from doing the above because it is essentially a form of retribution, revenge and vigiolante justice


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

Very few problems on our roads are caused by people who don't know the rules. They are caused by people who don't care enough about the rules to obey them. 

Speeding, parking on pavements, the endemic red light jumping and accelerating through amber lights you see from motorists at every junction, dangerous overtaking, etc. People know they're breaking the rules but they don't care. Make them pass a test to show that they know what the rules are? Why, when they'll leave the test centre still 'knowing' that these aren't real rules.

The answer is simple; break the rules repeatedly? Fine, you can't drive. 

Of course you could also target cyclists with such legislation, if you're not trying to improve road safety or reduce congestion.


----------



## CotterPin (26 Mar 2008)

Cab - spot on!

It's less an issue of getting people to redo the driving test periodically but making people aware of the consequences if they do something stupid. These can be legal sanctions which means we need better traffic policing. It can also be to remind people of the very real dangers they might be putting themselves and others in. 

Which is why I think we need more of the hard hitting adverts we see about road danger these days. Scare a few people into behaving themselves.


----------



## Arch (26 Mar 2008)

Yes, I'm afraid Cab is right in a huge number of cases. Although I'd love to see a poll of what "amber" means in a traffic light sequence to some people - I think a lot of people really do believe it just means "red next, but don't bother yourself too much". Saw two vehicles go over a clear amber just on my way in this morning. I don't think many people know it actually means stop, less unsafe to do so. (ie, you have to jam the brakes on,skid and cause the guy behind to rear end you)


----------



## CotterPin (26 Mar 2008)

Same for flashing amber lights, Arch. Had a car start moving even when I was still crossing in front of his bumper yesterday. Grrrr....


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

With the advent of the CCTV and licence recognition cameras it would be very easy to set up 'test areas' in hotspots, wherein drivers will have advanced notice that their driving will be monitored over say, an area of 5 sq. miles. This way there would be chances to catch mobile phone users , VED avoiders and RLJ'ers as well.


----------



## gambatte (26 Mar 2008)

Bikes should be taxed? Police VED better, catch 'em and crush 'em. Sort out congestion no end. 

Think I saw one poll with about 50% none payers in Bradford.


----------



## TheDoctor (26 Mar 2008)

I'll pay road tax if you insist.
At the same rate as the least polluting cars, naturally. That'll be nothing, then.
Insurance? Once all the cars have insurance, then maybe insist on it for cyclists. Not before. And good luck policing it.


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

Regarding tax and insurance, I _am_ insured, and I'll pay 'Road Tax' at the same rate as every other person on the road... i.e. zero, because there _is no such thing as road tax_. 

I pay the Vehicle Excise Duty appropriate to my carbon emissions (i.e. zero). Of course, as I'm burning energy to fuel my bicycle, I should pay tax appropriate to that. That fuel is what I eat, mostly veg from my plot and meat from local farms, with a few other bits I can't get, like, say, rice, spices, etc. Now all of the stuff from my plot has less than 1 food mile, that mile done by bicycle, and it is as near as damn it carbon neutral. I'll happily pay the environmental tax on that. As I'm a cyclist I'm also healthier and less of a drain on the NHS, so I should logically be rebated part of that too. I'd also like the proportion of my council tax that goes to pay for roads rebated, as I do an infinitessimal amount of damage to those roads. And as I'm not driving to supermarkets to fill up my bin with packaging, I'll have a rebate on my refuse collections too...

Which form do I need, and where do I send it, for my rebate? Do you think something like £300 per year would be an appropriate sum to claim for being a cyclist? More, do you think?


----------



## RedBike (26 Mar 2008)

Not so sure about testing cyclist but perhaps bringing back tuition for kids?


----------



## Arch (26 Mar 2008)

TheDoctor said:


> I'll pay road tax if you insist.
> At the same rate as the least polluting cars, naturally. That'll be nothing, then.
> Insurance? Once all the cars have insurance, then maybe insist on it for cyclists. Not before. And good luck policing it.



Someone made a great post recently, they'd worked out that cyclists would pay £0, but that each disc would cost £10 to administer, and based on the number of bikes in the country and the number of cars, it would cost the average motorist an extra £7 to pay for the all the admin. So if drivers want to pay £7 for me to have a free disc, fantastic!

Or, we could all ride bikes made pre-1973. Zero rate on them too....


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

RedBike said:


> Not so sure about testing cyclist but perhaps bringing back tuition for kids?



Teaching kids is becoming more and more popular. Generally giving them some confidence can't be bad.

But testing cyclists... Fine, I'm all for that. Lets test them to make sure they know to ride predominantly in primary position, assertively and in a vehicular fashion. Lets test cyclists to ensure they all know how they're actually meant to ride, as opposed to how far too many motorists (including all of the ones who keep bleating on that cyclists aren't tested) believe they should. I'd LOVE that. It would gridlock every town and city in the country with all of us riding as we really should, but heck, that would be a small price to pay to make the people who complain that we're not tested _shut the hell up_.


----------



## Arch (26 Mar 2008)

RedBike said:


> Not so sure about testing cyclist but perhaps bringing back tuition for kids?



Also good. Not just cycling tuition - I'd like to see all roadcraft taught in schools, as theory. Drum it into kids enough when young, some of it will stick. I remember two things from my childhood that have shaped my behaviour. One was my Dad saying "even when it's the green man, you have to still look, because a red light doesn't physically stop the cars" - that's possibly saved my life on at least occasion when a huge 4x4 completely jumped a red light as I was about to cross. And the other was seeing an older girl who'd been knocked down outside a school, lying in the road before the ambulance arrived. My Mum didn't make a big thing of shielding me from the sight, she simply said "she ran out without looking, that was silly" and we carried on, and I can see it to this day, and I make a great effort not to step out into the road without looking.

Get them young!


----------



## wafflycat (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:



> who said anything about peds..
> its not the peds i worry about its the other road users



So, considering that pedestrians do indeed use the roads. As a pedestrian I have used the roads many times. 

If you can't recognise that pedestrians are road users, I suspect you may just have failed that five-yearly re-test


----------



## wafflycat (26 Mar 2008)

Arch said:


> Yes, I'm afraid Cab is right in a huge number of cases. Although I'd love to see a poll of what "amber" means in a traffic light sequence to some people - I think a lot of people really do believe it just means "red next, but don't bother yourself too much". *Saw two vehicles go over a clear amber just on my way in this morning.* I don't think many people know it actually means stop, less unsafe to do so. (ie, you have to jam the brakes on,skid and cause the guy behind to rear end you)



Surely, Madam, your eyes deceive you, as any fule noe, it's only the lycra louts riding bicycles who don't pay road tax, ignore all rules of the road and are out to get the poor, put-upon, law-abiding British motorist, that do not know what traffic lights are for!... cont. pg 96


----------



## wafflycat (26 Mar 2008)

TheDoctor said:


> I'll pay road tax if you insist.
> At the same rate as the least polluting cars, naturally. That'll be nothing, then.
> Insurance? Once all the cars have insurance, then maybe insist on it for cyclists. Not before. And good luck policing it.



I'll pay road tax too, it doesn't exist. As for vehicle excise duty (which I do pay in respect of my motor), I'll willingly pay at the rate for the least polluting cars. So, yes, that'll be another zero. 

As for insurance, those of us who have household contents insurance are often already covered with third-party coverage - as the *real* risk from cyclists is so low, it's effectively a freebie... then there's those of us who are members of cycling organisations who get £10 million squids worth of third party cover thrown in as a benefit of membership... as the *real* risk of cycling is so low..


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

Rule of Traffic lights: If the traffic is actually moving, the first vehicle that could have stopped at amber will go through, and 90% of the time so will the second. In 90% of _those_ cases the next car to arrive will belt straight through the red light. 

Thats why sometimes junctions scare the hell out of me, and the closest I come to blatant red light jumping is when the car behind me _clearly_ isn't going to stop. Whats the betting that in those cases other motorists looking on will be cursing me and not the driver behind me?


----------



## TheDoctor (26 Mar 2008)

OK, OK, everyone, I *know* it's actually called VED.
And yes, I actually already have insurance by virtue of CTC membership.

I still daren't ride along the dual carriageway that's on my way to work, because I'd die within a week. And as some of you know, I'm a reasonably confident and able cyclist. God help the newcomers...


----------



## snorri (26 Mar 2008)

CotterPin said:


> Which is why I think we need more of the hard hitting adverts we see about road danger these days. Scare a few people into behaving themselves.



Adverts:?: ADVERTS:?:
It's armed traffic police we need. that'll sort them out.


----------



## andygates (26 Mar 2008)

Actually, it's just *more* police. They're perfectly capable of doing the job without getting up-cannoned.


----------



## Arch (26 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> Rule of Traffic lights: If the traffic is actually moving, the first vehicle that could have stopped at amber will go through, and 90% of the time so will the second. In 90% of _those_ cases the next car to arrive will belt straight through the red light.



Moving? I've seen cars stationary,queueing across a traffic light stop line (the queue went round a corner), and then when the cars in front went, the one behind he line went to follow, despite the fact that the light was red. I glared at the driver (since I was crossing at the time, in the company of about 5 other people) and he smiled, waved me across and then went anyway! Either he had no idea what the light phase was because he hadn't actually looked, or he didn't care.


----------



## wafflycat (26 Mar 2008)

TheDoctor said:


> OK, OK, everyone, I *know* it's actually called VED.
> And yes, I actually already have insurance by virtue of CTC membership.
> 
> I still daren't ride along the dual carriageway that's on my way to work, because I'd die within a week. And as some of you know, I'm a reasonably confident and able cyclist. God help the newcomers...



Yes, sweetie, we know you know it's VED 

Driver education is the main way forward. It's also the most difficult to do, and the most long term. 

Personally I think strapping any would-be motorist to the saddle of a bicycle and somehow forcing cycling everywhere upon them for a minimum of an entire year before they are allowed anywhere near the controls of a motorised vehicle would be a positive step...

Digression...

A motoring colleague of my dear husband.. a lady who loves her Porsche, who loves driving, says that once she got on to a bicycle, she had her eyes opened as regards the amount of space most drivers *don't* give vulnerable road users. Quite unintentionally: no malice, but purely from being in that nice, insulated metal box travelling at speed, meaning they don't actually *understand* what they are doing (or not doing as the case may be) when it comes to other road users. She says getting on a bicycle changed how she drives: for the better as she's far more aware of the needs of more vulnerable road users as a result of being one herself. Remember we've a generation or two now who probably haven't been on a bicycle since they were a kid and have no understanding of what it's like to be a vulnerable road user any more. Whereas our parents generation - a lot more folk cycled.


----------



## wafflycat (26 Mar 2008)

Arch said:


> Moving? I've seen cars stationary,queueing across a traffic light stop line (the queue went round a corner), and then when the cars in front went, the one behind he line went to follow, despite the fact that the light was red. I glared at the driver (since I was crossing at the time, in the company of about 5 other people) and he smiled, waved me across and then went anyway! Either he had no idea what the light phase was because he hadn't actually looked, or he didn't care.



Forsooth woman, you be hallucinating again, as any fule noe its only cyclists wot jump red lights. Got to be true, the Daily Wail sez so!


----------



## TheDoctor (26 Mar 2008)

Forsooth? Has Waffles been at the chain degreaser?


----------



## Arch (26 Mar 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Forsooth woman, you be hallucinating again, as any fule noe its only cyclists wot jump red lights. Got to be true, the Daily Wail sez so!



To be fair (to the daily mail? Why?), anyway, I don't suppose they've ever said "only cyclists jump red lights". And trying to argue on the grounds that 'they' (drivers) do it too does no good for people's perceptions of cyclists, because 2 wrongs don't make a right etc... So I try to avoid that line of reasoning....


----------



## summerdays (26 Mar 2008)

Arch said:


> Also good. Not just cycling tuition - I'd like to see all roadcraft taught in schools, *as theory*. Drum it into kids enough when young, some of it will stick. I remember two things from my childhood that have shaped my behaviour. ....... And the other was seeing an older girl who'd been knocked down outside a school, lying in the road before the ambulance arrived.
> 
> Get them young!



The vision in my head is that each school should re-enact a road traffic accident with a child lying in the road. But I'm sure that wasn't what you were meaning. Though you are right - I do remember seeing a child cyclist go flying over the handlebars when I was about 14, when he didn't stop at a give way line. It did make a big impression.

And todays bad driving that I witnessed: a child at a give way line waiting to turn right. Impatient car driver, realising that there wasn't enough room to turn into that side road, instead when in to the child's left, mounting the kerb to get by.


----------



## wafflycat (26 Mar 2008)

Arch said:


> To be fair (to the daily mail? Why?), anyway, I don't suppose they've ever said "only cyclists jump red lights". And trying to argue on the grounds that 'they' (drivers) do it too does no good for people's perceptions of cyclists, because 2 wrongs don't make a right etc... So I try to avoid that line of reasoning....



Fair to the Daily Wail? Arch, you're a better woman than I 

It's just me having a, hopefully, light-hearted ranting at the mentality of the tabloids & petrolheads towards cyclists in general: that less than sympathetic view that can sometimes be seen


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

ok guys,
i started this so heres what i think.. 
road tax for bikes.. wot??
peds are road users.. wot??
roadcraft in schools... yes

most road users,bikes,motorcycles,cars,buses etc 
dont know when they are in the wrong hence the need
for a test..
yes , they are a number of users who know they are doing wrong
but when they are told about the dangers or how dangerous
there actions were they think twice next time..
ok, another question...
is it legal to filter through traffic at traffic lights,
and if so what speed do you think would be allowed..
ride safe..


----------



## jiggerypokery (26 Mar 2008)

Donny you darling troll you, do you actually own/ride a bike on the road and do you do so with any frequency? What is your experience of riding in traffic, what qualifies you to surmise that a test is needed for all road users? Are you predominantely a car driver who has had poor experiences with cyclists or are you a cyclist that has in his sights a level playing field for all road users and their education?

Come on fess up...enlighten us, qualify your original post with some observations, experiences etc.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

With every respect, am I wrong in finding that last line slightly ominus?

I don't tend to filter 'thru' traffic as a rule, but I will filter down the outside of a line of static traffic if I am going to be making a right hand turn.

Sometimes it is impossible to avoid being in amongst traffic, pulling into a primary position in moving traffic to let a bus undertake and then hitting a red light for example can leave you in a position to need to filter to the front as safely as possible.


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

hi, i see both sides of the coin,,
yes i do ride a bike, both on and off road, every day..
i am a motorcycle instructor and ive seen some things in my 20 odd years of being a road user..


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

is it legal or not to filter through traffic??.
how many times can you go round a roundabout before its classed as dangerous driving???


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

is everyone looking for a highway code book....


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

my point has been made.
people think they know the rules of the road but they dont know
some of the basics.. hence the need for a test..


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

I used to ride motorbikes so all my road sense is derived from that particular school, even down to having my front lights on in the day. Old habits.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2008)

I think donnymac is in fact Ellisfield from my left hook video, after that filtering in traffic comment he just made.


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sNihkLI6qlc


Note tdr1nka's comment on filtering on the outside, Ellisfield.


Let's see, here are a list of Ellisfield's assertions:

jumped the first lights. Err, no, it's obvious from the video I waited for the green before leaving the ASL.
Drove over the cross hatched area. Wrong, that's quite legal, the cross hatching has a broken line.
Got in the wrong lane - there's only one lane, so I'm not sure how I can be in the "wrong" one.
Queue Jumped in the right turn lane and then cut back. No, there's no right turn lane approaching the junction, and there's nothing illegal about cutting back in, especially not in front of a stationary vehicle that has a gap in front of it. The video doesn't show the gap, admittedly, but it does show that the car remains stationary whilst I pass it.
Are confused as to what is "overtaking" and what is "queue jumping". Overtaking/filtering might be described as queue jumping by a jealous motorist, but it's perfectly legal for two wheelers to do so.
You dangerously cut ahead of the Audi causing all the queue behind including the Honda 4x4 that cut you up to also react to the problem you caused. How can anyone dangerously cut in front of a stationary vehicle?

He now swaps to insisting I should use the cycle lane to filter, and not overtake on the right. Problem is, the cycle lane is only a short ASL feeder lane, and I wouldn't use it anyway even if it was longer because it's less safe on the left in general, particularly at this situation.

It's quite funny really, this debate has been going on for a while now, but it hasn't been hard to shoot down all his points. Apparently he rides 1000 miles a year and has NEVER been cut up. Ahahahahaha!


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

who the f... are you talking about??
i asked if it was legal to filter.. 
well.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> who the f... are you talking about??
> i asked if it was legal to filter..
> well.



It's perfectly legal to filter, it's specifically mentioned in the highway code. OTOH there is some onus of care on the two wheeler who is filtering.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2008)

On second thoughts, I doubt he's Ellisfield given the difference in writing styles.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> how many times can you go round a roundabout before its classed as dangerous driving???





> What a daft question. Why would anyone need to know the answer? If there is one.






I know, I know!!!

If you go around and around until you're dizzy and fall off would be quite dangerous.


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

thanks guys its been fun..
yes its legal to filter through at a speed of no more than 3mph, (walking pace) . 
just got a pic of a dizzy rider falling off at a roundabout.lol
the answer is three times before the police can charge you with dangerous driving..


----------



## col (26 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> Teaching kids is becoming more and more popular. Generally giving them some confidence can't be bad.
> 
> But testing cyclists... Fine, I'm all for that. Lets test them to make sure they know to ride predominantly in primary position, assertively and in a vehicular fashion. Lets test cyclists to ensure they all know how they're actually meant to ride, as opposed to how far too many motorists (including all of the ones who keep bleating on that cyclists aren't tested) believe they should. I'd LOVE that. It would gridlock every town and city in the country with all of us riding as we really should, but heck, that would be a small price to pay to make the people who complain that we're not tested _shut the hell up_.




So your saying its ok to cause hold ups and even gridlock,because your supposed to cycle that way?


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2008)

I'm not sure it would cause gridlock, so I think Cab's wrong. I think it would smooth out and increase traffic flow and reduce accidents by taking away the ability for a car driver to put pedal to metal when accelerating and braking.


----------



## col (26 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not sure it would cause gridlock, so I think Cab's wrong. I think it would smooth out and increase traffic flow and reduce accidents by taking away the ability for a car driver to put pedal to metal when accelerating and braking.




What would holding traffic up?


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

Bicycles should be like white blood cells and oxgenate the lifeblood of our transport infrastructure.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

Insufficiant capacity, bad planning, and mostly traffic itself causes hold ups.
Cyclists are interspersed among that traffic but are very low down on the list for causing the hold ups.


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

at last ... 
thankyou ive made my point.. asking for a ref for speeds on filtering
its in the highway code.. 
if the traffic has stopped its classed as filtering.. 3mph no more.
if its slow moving traffic filtering through is not legal, its undertaking..
filtering through traffic ie between two or more lanes of traffic..
to filter through is not overtaking..
i thankyou..


----------



## col (26 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Insufficiant capacity, bad planning, and mostly traffic itself causes hold ups.
> Cyclists are interspersed among that traffic but are very low down on the list for causing the hold ups.



But the point was made to be in primary and slow traffic wasnt it?


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> at last ...
> thankyou ive made my point.. asking for a ref for speeds on filtering
> its in the highway code..
> if the traffic has stopped its classed as filtering.. 3mph no more.
> ...




Er.... No.
I cannot find the roundabout reference in the online UK Highwaycode.
Do you have a link to the item in question or could you quote the ref No. of the approved document where this point is mentioned.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

col said:


> But the point was made to be in primary and slow traffic wasnt it?



Not necessarily, that is all down to intention.
Cyclists en mass, perhaps you'd get gridlock but even in London I don't see enough cyclists, unless they formed a peleton maybe, causing that much disturbance.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

Cycling in primary just to slow traffic and cause trouble in London would soon see you covered in bruises or worse still in Hospital.
I recommend this course of action to no one.


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

check the police drivers training book.. its in that..
thought i would chuck it in lol..
filtering speeds is in the highway code..


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> check the police drivers training book.. its in that..
> thought i would chuck it in lol..




Ah brilliant!
Well done.
Yes 'The Police Drivers Handbook' how did I not guess?
A volume we all have to hand and is widley recommended reading for all road users, even those without a uniform fetish.
Tut Tut silly me. Slaps ones own hand, 'silly, naughty cyclist!'.

You said it was in the Highway Code so you is wrong and a tw*t.

I can only now guess we should be expecting more questions from you and your advanced library then?
Something from the SOE syllabus maybe or the SAS handbook?

On second thoughts, spare me. I answered your posts honestly and now see you for the a*se you is. When you said testing you meant patience!


----------



## sanoffyhighstepson (26 Mar 2008)

*Hi*

Not stirring anything but do they still do cycle proficiency tests at schools?. Would be a good idea to reintroduce that if it not on the go.
They done that when I was at school (a few moons ago!!!) and it helped me, even at an early age, the basics of road safety, awareness etc.


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

i rest my case.. you are all looking at the hwc..
the 3mph is in the book... 
all road users should take a test ..
what does everyone want less cars on the road??
why?


----------



## wafflycat (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> ok guys,
> i started this so heres what i think..
> road tax for bikes.. wot??
> peds are road users.. wot??
> ...




sniff.. sniff... ah yes, it's that fetid odour once more


----------



## Bollo (26 Mar 2008)

Nope. Just been for a sh1t, where I regularly dip into the highway code as something to do during my movements. Nothing in there about filtering speeds. If you're talking about 'Roadcraft' as the 'police manual', I'll dig out my copy of roadcraft and check but I think I know the answer. Dangerous driving for three times around a RB? Not 'careless', but 'dangerous'!? What next? Hanging for forgery!?

The HC makes it easy to give references. Use the numbery things next to the big blocks of words (we call them sentences), write the relevent number in your next post and then we'll chat.

New Troll please, this one's not working.

Oh, and LoL (about what I have no idea)


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

i have defined filtering.. 
the ref for roundabouts is in the traffic police book..
the next time you see a traffic police person, ask..


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

Er.... again No.

I refered back to the highway code for the roundabout question as I was certain I hadn't ever seen it mentioned and in fact it isn't and I was right.
I gave you my answer to the filtering question earlier so had no reason to check it as I knew my information to be correct.

Less cars more space for everyone, better environs and public transport etc.
Any one who wants to see more cars on the road are going to find themselves in more traffic jams and just more frustrated it makes perfect sense even for car drivers to see traffic thinned out.


----------



## wafflycat (26 Mar 2008)

Arroogah! Arroogah! Troll-o-meter alert! Arroogah!


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2008)

There is definitely a mention of filtering in the highway code:

*88*

Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

Remember: Observation – Signal – Manoeuvre


No mention of 3mph though, and that's far lower than what most people recommend in a quick google.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> what does everyone want less cars on the road??
> why?



I would like even more cars on the road, with more traffic queues. Then I can still take about as long over my commute on the bicycle, and gain extra smugness points for passing so many cars.


----------



## Bollo (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> i rest my case.. you are all looking at the hwc..
> the 3mph is in the book...
> all road users should take a test ..
> what does everyone want less cars on the road??
> why?



Let's hope its not a written test eh, donny.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

Dunno about Donnymac, should be more like, don a mac, as in IGMC!


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

i see what your doing, taking small points from a book and not the whole pic.
passing slow moving traffic if they are in a slow moving lane, other than the one you are in.
ie. it is illegal to move from behind a vehicle that is in the lane in front of you and undertake.. 
if the vehicle you are undertaking is in the slow moving lane to your right
and not in your lane its not illegal.
if you think its ok to undertake a vehicle thats in front of you in your lane
then i would like to live in your dream..


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

be safe..
think first.
thanks


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

You are taking small details and acreditting(sic)them to the wrong publication in order to make a rather vacuous point.

Now you're talking about undertaking? You seem to have lost a grip on your original ideas here M8.


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

Donnymac, anyone with the remotest bit of road sense knows that undertaking in your own lane is potentially suicidal and best avoided.

It is called undertaking because that is the industry that has to deal with the foolhardy who misjudge this practice.


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

hi mate.
my original question got lost lone ago....
i just think it would be safer if everyone who uses the road
takes a test.. im all for schools teaching kids about road safety.
why stop with the kids..


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

There kinda needs to be an entire overhaul of everyone's 'driving' principles to remove the predjudices and bad habits this goes for motorists as well as cyclists, maybe a 4 day refresher course, compulsory like jury service?

It is obviously better to make sure everyone gets coaching before going on the roads, the CPT obviuosly being the cycle equivelent of the CBT.
The problem is that as much as cyclists and motorists should wise up to needs and safety of the other, it would have to happen in tandem for it to work.
Cyclists in general, have to share the roads but mostly with motorists who can't or won't, making it unnecessarily dangerous at times to do something basic like, taking my 6 year old daughter to school.

What people have difficulty in accepting is that motorists feel it is only or primarily the cyclist that has to give way on this issue.

Therein lies the rub.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac what group do you instruct for? Because I am going to have to re-take my RoSPA mo'bike in a year to keep it up to date and I want to make sure you don't teach me.


----------



## donnymac (26 Mar 2008)

thanks tdr..
we agree on somethings. 
can we all agree with tdr..


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

I blush.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (26 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Ah brilliant!
> Well done.
> Yes 'The Police Drivers Handbook' how did I not guess?
> A volume we all have to hand and is widley recommended reading for all road users, even those without a uniform fetish.
> ...





tdr1nka said:


> Dunno about Donnymac, should be more like, don a mac, as in IGMC!





tdr1nka said:


> You are taking small details and acreditting(sic)them to the wrong publication in order to make a rather vacuous point.
> 
> Now you're talking about undertaking? You seem to have lost a grip on your original ideas here M8.









donnymac said:


> thanks tdr..
> we agree on somethings.
> can we all agree with tdr..



Yes, I think we can all agree with him.

Idiot.


----------



## Bollo (26 Mar 2008)

Hang on! I've just exposed my copy of the HC under ultraviolet light, and its revealed a whole 'secret section'! As well as the 3mph speed limit for filtering and the 3xRB rule, it also reveals...

310

Drivers *should *sing along tunelessly to the radio when driving alone. Drivers listening to talk radio may alternatively shout 'boll0cks!' and 'w@nker!' to any opinion expressed that does not agree with their own.

311

Driving while wearing a hat *should *be avoided. If the urge to wear a hat is irresistable, the driver should choose a sensible trilby or tweed-based flat cap. 

312

Younger agressive drivers of Citroen Saxos, Peugeot 106s, or Renault Clios *must *use their fog lights at all times. This ensures that other drivers recognise your vehicle as a rally-prepared team car on a final shakedown run before being shipped to Finland for the latest round of the WRC.

313

Cyclists *must *be killed. They do not pay road tax.

314 

Especially that magnatom. That fu**er lost me my job.

315

I love that Clarkson. He's brilliant, especially that bit when they went to Alambama and they wrote "Man Love Rules" on the Hamster's car. Brilliant!

316

Drivers *must not *eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:12)


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

TY JRG.
Again, I sincerily blush.


----------



## Crackle (26 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Ah brilliant!
> Well done.
> Yes 'The Police Drivers Handbook' how did I not guess?
> A volume we all have to hand and is widley recommended reading for all road users, even those without a uniform fetish.
> ...




Tdr1nka, I have become a great admirer of your posts. I know not your occupation but if it isn't 'concise, precise and amusing piss ripping' you've missed your calling


----------



## tdr1nka (26 Mar 2008)

TY Crackle, I feel honoured.

I'm currently between jobs so if you can find me a vacancy I'm open to offers.


----------



## gambatte (26 Mar 2008)

sanoffyhighstepson said:


> Not stirring anything but do they still do cycle proficiency tests at schools?. Would be a good idea to reintroduce that if it not on the go.
> They done that when I was at school (a few moons ago!!!) and it helped me, even at an early age, the basics of road safety, awareness etc.



check this

https://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/deta...4,677,767,684,762,718,674,708,683,706,718,674


----------



## papercorn2000 (26 Mar 2008)

Our village is short of an idiot...


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

col said:


> So your saying its ok to cause hold ups and even gridlock,because your supposed to cycle that way?



I'm saying that were all cyclists to ride assertively and predominantly in primary position as they are encouraged to do, then they would cause gridlock in most of cities. Is it okay that they do that? Well, yes, I'm afraid that unless you want to insist that each cyclist takes risks to make other peoples lives more convenient, then you have to accept that such behaviour would be entirely okay. 

And thats why, really, no one who says they want to see cyclists 'trained' or 'tested' actually would like the outcome. The inevitability of most cyclists being like me, it would drive them bonkers.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2008)

I don't think it would make a lot of difference myself. Why do you think gridlock would result, Cab?


----------



## historyman (26 Mar 2008)

There is already a scheme for 'training' people caught speeding; and having been caught going 36 in a 30 zone (which I'm not proud of) I got sent on it & it were rubbish. (Actually I chose it against points on my licence but I regret it). The scheme is stupid because:
a) optional;
 no training is needed to stop speeding, except heavy fines for speeders;
c) annoying guys running it boasting about how much money they were coining in off the government, & what new contracts they were about to get.


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

col said:


> But the point was made to be in primary and slow traffic wasnt it?



Being in primary can slow traffic. That isn't the purpose of being in primary though. You're getting confused between intent to slow traffic and intent to remain safe.


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I don't think it would make a lot of difference myself. Why do you think gridlock would result, Cab?



Because walking around most cities I see cyclists on pavements, on the kerbside, going through red lights... Usually they're the slower and more physically inept ones. Put them on the roads where they're meant to be in traffic and, to me at least, it seems inevitable that they'd slow traffic right down. Gridlock is perhaps too strong a term, but don't tell the motorists that, I like to use the word to _scare_ them.


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> hi mate.
> my original question got lost lone ago....
> i just think it would be safer if everyone who uses the road
> takes a test.. im all for schools teaching kids about road safety.
> why stop with the kids..



I now agree with you. Your abysmal lack of knowledge on road safety issues would almost certainly get you off our roads. Suddenly, I'm right in favour...


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> Because walking around most cities I see cyclists on pavements, on the kerbside, going through red lights... Usually they're the slower and more physically inept ones. Put them on the roads where they're meant to be in traffic and, to me at least, it seems inevitable that they'd slow traffic right down. Gridlock is perhaps too strong a term, but don't tell the motorists that, I like to use the word to _scare_ them.



I reckon it would irritate car drivers because they'd find themselves waiting behind cyclists more often. I also think it would, surprisingly, improve traffic flow by breaking the accelerate drag race and brake cycle and reduce queues. In other words, lower peak speeds and similar or slightly better average speeds.

Cyclists and motor vehicles are a little like sand and large sized gravel - they fit together well and only take up more room when they're apart.


----------



## col (26 Mar 2008)

I'd LOVE that. It would gridlock every town and city in the country with all of us riding as we really should

Sorry,i misunderstood.


----------



## Cab (26 Mar 2008)

> I ride assertively, and don't hold up traffic. Those that have to wait a few seconds behind me are usually waiting for me at the next lights.



Yes, but I suspect that like me you're moving at a reasonable pace. Imagine what would happen if the pavement dawdlers and the slow sub-secondary riders all decided to be out in primary. I agree, mostly a few assertive cyclists have no meaningful impact on how long it takes people to drive anywhere, but if we were all like that then we'd see a major re-think of traffic management in the UK. No bad thing, IMHO.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

> You know, I think you're right.
> 
> I wouldn't gloat over it, but if it resulted in roads being redesigned to be more inclusive, then it would be worth it.



Of course. But thats why those people who bleat on about cyclists not having to pass a test don't _really_ want us to be tested at an appropriate standard. All they're really doing is showing ignorance about what kind of behaviour should be expected of a competent cyclist. And, regrettably, thats also why it'll never happen. To accomodate an increasing number of mid to low competence cyclists predominantly in primary position in towns and cities would require a major rethink of how we manage traffic in the UK. Clearly a good thing, but also something that would terrify everyone from local planners through to central government.


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> To accomodate an increasing number of mid to low competence cyclists predominantly in primary position in towns and cities would require a major rethink of how we manage traffic in the UK.



IMO it would also annoy a lot of supposedly competent cyclists, the kind that tut and grumble when they 'have' to overtake Ms. tdr1nka(6)and I when we are on the tandem, owing to our sedate pace which is for safety considering the fragility of the cargo.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Mar 2008)

Riding properly as taught wouldn't mean that all of us would ride in primary nearly all the time would it?

I really don't see why you think it'd hold up traffic and cause queues, though I'd certainly agree it would reduce peak traffic speeds. I don't think it's very productive to claim that it would either, as it makes you look like even more of a militant cyclist.


----------



## wafflycat (27 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Riding properly as taught wouldn't mean that all of us would ride in primary nearly all the time would it?



Of course it wouldn't.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> IMO it would also annoy a lot of supposedly competent cyclists, the kind that tut and grumble when they 'have' to overtake Ms. tdr1nka(6)and I when we are on the tandem, owing to our sedate pace which is for safety considering the fragility of the cargo.



Yep, I'm sure it would. It saddens me how intolerant of other road users some cyclists are


----------



## col (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> Yes, but I suspect that like me you're moving at a reasonable pace. Imagine what would happen if the pavement dawdlers and the slow sub-secondary riders all decided to be out in primary. I agree, mostly a few assertive cyclists have no meaningful impact on how long it takes people to drive anywhere, but if we were all like that then we'd see a major re-think of traffic management in the UK. No bad thing, IMHO.




I think it would lead to conflict,look at the reaction to mag,can you imagine what it would be like on the roads if all cyclist decided to be in the middle of the road?For safety reasons i agree,but most of the time, conflict could have been avoided.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Riding properly as taught wouldn't mean that all of us would ride in primary nearly all the time would it?



In city traffic yes, it would. Can't speak for you, but I spend most of the time in traffic in primary position. 



> I really don't see why you think it'd hold up traffic and cause queues, though I'd certainly agree it would reduce peak traffic speeds. I don't think it's very productive to claim that it would either, as it makes you look like even more of a militant cyclist.



Its to do with the speed of slower cyclists and just how many more you'd see claiming primary as opposed to cycling close to or on the pavement. Standing in London recently it occurred to me that the only way that the traffic was working at all was by the slower cyclists being right in the gutter, allowing fast and close (basically illegal) overtaking as the norm rather than the exception. If there is traffic on both sides of the road and not sufficient space to safely pass a cyclist in secondary position without running in to oncoming traffic (normal city street) then it is not possible to overtake safely, and the solution is not to move over to the lefta bit more, it is to claim primary. Get all the slower cyclists out in the middle of the lane and a lot of cities suddenly start moving at 11mph, not as a mean speed but as a peak speed. 

But it gets tougher than that... Theres a road I use maybe three days in five, its a 30mph road but usually speeded on as it is long and straight. Parked cars always down one side, no chance whatsoever of safe overtaking if you're in primary and there is traffic on the other side, so if you're on the same side of the parked cars you really, really should stay in primary else sooner or later you'll be doored. On average, over the 1100 yards or so of that road, I'll overtake 6 to 8 other cyclists, I'll average probably 18mph along there if I'm taking it easyish, although I've done 32mph down there. Cars will uniformly do 35mph, if every cyclist was in primary at their standard pace (10 -12 mph for a lot of the slower ones), avoiding the car doors or simply preventing people from overtaking them dangerously with oncoming traffic... Well, the traffic would be far slower, it would back up to the junction at the end (already does sometimes), few cars would get on to the road when the lights changed (theres always a bike or three...), thus the traffic is now static down on to Milton Road, possibly right back to the roundabout. 

Its not that every single road would be blocked, its more that there would be multiple significant new bottlenecks in every town and city, which would require very different management. And, frankly, to a typical motorist its easier to just call that gridlock.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

col said:


> I think it would lead to conflict,look at the reaction to mag,can you imagine what it would be like on the roads if all cyclist decided to be in the middle of the road?For safety reasons i agree,but most of the time, conflict could have been avoided.



I won't ride in an unsafe road position to avoid this 'conflict' of which you speak. Nor really should anyone ask me to. I'll move over where it is safe to allow faster traffic to overtake, but I'll stick to riding by cyclecraft. 

Really, training cyclists all to ride thus wouldn't create conflict, its the ingrained _wrong_ belief in motorists that cyclists should be submissive that would cause conflice. But, of course, thats not how _they_ would see it...


----------



## col (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> In city traffic yes, it would. Can't speak for you, but I spend most of the time in traffic in primary position.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not everyone who cycles can go the speeds a regularly training cyclist can go,i dont think the councils and governments would hold their hands up and change things very quickly,all that would happen is cyclists would be called even more, and clashes with motorists would increase.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Mar 2008)

Well, it's true, I do find myself riding in primary more in central London, but not always. What's more, I find that the traffic still isn't held up by me, and is in fact considerably slower on average.

I think your assertions are wrong, in that peak motor vehicle speeds will be reduced by the cyclists riding properly, and the average speed of the traffic will go up slightly because of the cyclists smoothing everything out. I think most people would welcome this together with the new and better cyclist behaviour.

I still think you're being counter-productive with your clever "sound bite". It's snappy and gets attention, but it's very divisive and is further enhancing the them and us, and that makes life worse for us all. Most of us on here are also drivers, not freaking beardy weirdy car haters.


----------



## col (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> I won't ride in an unsafe road position to avoid this 'conflict' of which you speak. Nor really should anyone ask me to. I'll move over where it is safe to allow faster traffic to overtake, but I'll stick to riding by cyclecraft.
> 
> Really, training cyclists all to ride thus wouldn't create conflict, its the ingrained _wrong_ belief in motorists that cyclists should be submissive that would cause conflice. But, of course, thats not how _they_ would see it...





I think its more like a slower vehicle shouldnt block faster vehicles if it can be helped,it just happens to be a bike thats slower.If it was some other form of transport that goes our speeds,the reaction would be the same i think.

I suppose thats what the difference is between us,im willing to slow or even pullover,to allow faster vehicles to progress,you call it being submissive,i call it manners,polite cycling,safe cycling even,after all,i am the slower vehicle and dont see a problem with giving way when needed to faster vehicles.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

col said:


> Not everyone who cycles can go the speeds a regularly training cyclist can go,i dont think the councils and governments would hold their hands up and change things very quickly,all that would happen is cyclists would be called even more, and clashes with motorists would increase.



Indeed. Which is why those motorists who are likely to get angry at cyclists, the ones who complain that we're not trained, really wouldn't want us to be trained at all.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Well, it's true, I do find myself riding in primary more in central London, but not always. What's more, I find that the traffic still isn't held up by me, and is in fact considerably slower on average.



Thats my experience too, but I suspect that like me you're shifting at a half decent pace.



> I think your assertions are wrong, in that peak motor vehicle speeds will be reduced by the cyclists riding properly, and the average speed of the traffic will go up slightly because of the cyclists smoothing everything out. I think most people would welcome this together with the new and better cyclist behaviour.



You raise an interesting point, and I'll give it some thought. My instinct, based on what I see regularly in Cambridge, is that you're wrong. We've got enough cyclists here such that sometimes you'll see a dozen all on the same road, all of them being assertive, and if three or four of those cyclists are slow then traffic (including other cyclists stuck in it) moves at the speed of the slowest bikes, which causes tailbacks to juntions, which are then flowing more slowly than they were designed to leading to the traffic there not moving at all. I see it happen here, it seems the inevitable result if all slower cyclists behaved thus. 



> I still think you're being counter-productive with your clever "sound bite". It's snappy and gets attention, but it's very divisive and is further enhancing the them and us, and that makes life worse for us all. Most of us on here are also drivers, not freaking beardy weirdy car haters.



I haven't got a beard, and I'm not freaking. Although I'd love to know what that means.

And while I don't particularly hate cars there is a subset of intolerant motorists I have no time for at all. They tend to be the angry ones who believe we should be taxed and trained 

I don't put forward the 'gridlock' thing as a soundbite; my observations and my instincts tell me thats what would happen, its only a tiny overstatement.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

col said:


> I think its more like a slower vehicle shouldnt block faster vehicles if it can be helped,it just happens to be a bike thats slower.If it was some other form of transport that goes our speeds,the reaction would be the same i think.



Granted. But of course you only allow overtaking when it is safe to do so. So, in heavy traffic, you can move over and allow overtaking when there is enough of a gap, but really if you're a bike in primary position you probably won't have to, its only safe to overtake when theres no traffic on the other side and then theres a gap anyway. It is the expectation that cyclists should move over to allow unsafe overtaking that is the problem; just 'cos a cyclist is slower than a car, that doesn't make dangerous overtaking reasonable.



> I suppose thats what the difference is between us,im willing to slow or even pullover,to allow faster vehicles to progress,you call it being submissive,i call it manners,polite cycling,safe cycling even,after all,i am the slower vehicle and dont see a problem with giving way when needed to faster vehicles.



I'll also move over to allow overtaking when it is safe and appropriate; please, hilight where I have said otherwise.

It is the habitual positioning of cyclists in a secondary or sub-secondary position on roads where primary would be safer that is the problem. Thats more dangerous and, regrettably, in most places in the UK thats considered ordinary cycling.


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> Its to do with the speed of slower cyclists and just how many more you'd see claiming primary as opposed to cycling close to or on the pavement. Standing in London recently it occurred to me that the only way that the traffic was working at all was by the slower cyclists being right in the gutter, allowing fast and close (basically illegal) overtaking as the norm rather than the exception. If there is traffic on both sides of the road and not sufficient space to safely pass a cyclist in secondary position without running in to oncoming traffic (normal city street) then it is not possible to overtake safely, and the solution is not to move over to the lefta bit more, it is to claim primary. Get all the slower cyclists out in the middle of the lane and a lot of cities suddenly start moving at 11mph, not as a mean speed but as a peak speed.




TY Cab, this is exactly what cycling in London is like.
To be fair, where there are bus lanes and red routes you are less likely to be shoved to the gutter, but where there are no bus lanes and row upon row of parked cars then you have to hold a strong primary position.

The impatient motorist simply views a cyclist as an obstruction, as they would if you were slower car or a bus pulling out.
They have no comprehension, or care even, as to why you might cycle in this manner other than you being provocative or out to deliberately slow them down.

The real fact is tho, the av. speed in London traffic is 12mph, so getting more intermediate cyclists to ride primary wouldn't change traffic speed that much but would further enrage countless motorists, which kinda shows the demographic that really needs to be further tested.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> You raise an interesting point, and I'll give it some thought. My instinct, based on what I see regularly in Cambridge, is that you're wrong. We've got enough cyclists here such that sometimes you'll see a dozen all on the same road, all of them being assertive, and if three or four of those cyclists are slow then traffic (including other cyclists stuck in it) moves at the speed of the slowest bikes, which causes tailbacks to juntions, which are then flowing more slowly than they were designed to leading to the traffic there not moving at all. I see it happen here, it seems the inevitable result if all slower cyclists behaved thus.



Ah, now I see this differently. I see queues at nearly every junction, and if the cars were to go slower between junctions, they'd simply wait less time in the queue at the next junction. That would likely make any tailbacks shorter. At the least, I would expect little or no change in average motor vehicle speed. At best, I would expect a little more efficiency at junctions because of the reduced queues, and thus a small average speed increase.

Even the slower cyclists here are generally at least as fast on average as the cars.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> The real fact is tho, the av. speed in London traffic is 12mph, so getting more intermediate cyclists to ride primary wouldn't change traffic speed that much but would further enrage countless motorists, which kinda shows the demographic that really needs to be further tested.



In the very worst traffic in many of our cities you're right, cyclists would make little difference being right in the middle at 12mph (and BM made the point that they might even out the flow a little, which is no bad thing). But theres heavy traffic and _heavy traffic_. My experience is that assertive slower cyclists do seem to slow things up and cause tailbacks; they're well within their rights to do so (and should be encouraged to cycle appropriately), but of course not everyone is quite so sympathetic with them.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Even the slower cyclists here are generally at least as fast on average as the cars.



Which is a key difference between those places with the most heavy traffic and the ones where traffic is heavy but not totally congested. On some routes in Cambridge my average speed is much faster than the cars, on some others its a lot slower; where you get a stream of assertive slower cyclists, you're slowing the traffic right down to that of the most congested traffic. Effectively, if the streets (including lights, junctions etc.) are designed to keep traffic flowing faster than that then you end up, more or less, with gridlock. 

As an aside, we've got several streets here where thats the traffic planners intention. Talking to the county council traffic planners about the width of some roads in the city a couple of years back, it transpires that some of them are kept narrow such that cyclists reduce the mean speed of motorists. Of course what happens is that you get terrified cyclists hugging the gutter with taxis screaming past inches from them, having first bullied the cyclist into sub-secondary positions. Usually a glance back from primary at the taxi behind you and the driver then knows you're not to be bullied like that, its a system for controlling traffic speed that actually depends upon enough cyclists being assertive to make it work. Which, for the most part, is why it doesn't


----------



## BentMikey (27 Mar 2008)

Except that you made the point that the slower cyclists cause tailbacks of motorvehicles at junctions, unless I've misunderstood. My point is that these same slower cyclists are acting to reduce queueing time and length.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> You raise an interesting point, and I'll give it some thought. My instinct, based on what I see regularly in Cambridge, is that you're wrong. We've got enough cyclists here such that sometimes you'll see a dozen all on the same road, all of them being assertive, and if three or four of those cyclists are slow then traffic (including other cyclists stuck in it) moves at the speed of the slowest bikes, *which causes tailbacks to juntions*, which are then flowing more slowly than they were designed to leading to the traffic there not moving at all. I see it happen here, it seems the inevitable result if all slower cyclists behaved thus.



Here's the bit I'm thinking of. Given some of your other posts, you might also mean tailbacks behind the cyclist, and then not at junctions?


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Except that you made the point that the slower cyclists cause tailbacks of motorvehicles at junctions, unless I've misunderstood. My point is that these same slower cyclists are acting to reduce queueing time and length.



Slower cyclists in primary tend to cause tailbacks _to_ junctions, with the knock on effect that fewer vehicles get through leading to more or less static traffic.

So, for example, if I turn left from Milton Road on to Arbury Road, I've got a short distance before parked cars in front of me, and I've usually got traffic on the other side of the road. An assertive cyclist (like me) will take a strong primary and prevent overtaking there, because it ain't safe. I might be going at 17mph (on average, from a standing start and not hurrying).

Most slower cyclists will be right in the gutter around the corner, then they're desperately looking for a way out into the traffic to get past the parked cars. If instead the slower cyclist does the right thing, gets into primary because it just ain't safe to allow overtaking there, then a good five or six vehicles that might have passed haven't, and the whole stream of traffic is stuck behind him at 11mph. Knowing that junction well, I know that when this happens something like half of the number of cars that normally get through at red can do so. Because thats a left filter lane that means that when its busy the lane then fills up and traffic backs right up to the roundabout way further back.

In some traffic situations slower cyclists mediate traffic speed and keep things nice and even. In others, assertive slow cyclists (most especially when there are plenty of them) grind traffic to a stop. I don't blame them for it, it isn't their fault that there are loads of cars clogging up the roads and they certainly shouldn't ride dangerously to free up the traffic. But my observation is that the effect can be rather frustrating for the motorists, and rather clogging on the road.

A few such cyclists do nothing bad for traffic flow. When you see lots of slow assertive riders things seem to change, except of course in exceptionally heavy traffic (which in some parts of London and some other city centres is the norm).


----------



## BentMikey (27 Mar 2008)

I'm not so sure that's the case for the more common sorts of junctions and traffic flows most of us ride in.


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Mar 2008)

Cab, correct me if I'm wrong but do cycles out number cars in Cambridge?


----------



## BentMikey (27 Mar 2008)

LOL! When I wrote my first post on this topic I thought hackers is going to like this!


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not so sure that's the case for the more common sorts of junctions and traffic flows most of us ride in.



Try getting a few mates to help you out, cycle about assertively but slowly, see what happens.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Cab, correct me if I'm wrong but do cycles out number cars in Cambridge?



In the middle of town, yes. Less further out you get. I would say that here in the North of the city we're easily outnumbered by cars, but by the time I've cycled into the city centre proper there are probly more than twice as many bikes or more, mostly 'cos you can't drive anyhere very easily in the city centre.

Thats why some more unusual occurrences happen more often here, such as the example of having a stream of slow but assertive cyclists. I think its also why motorists here seem so much angrier than in much of the rest of the UK


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> In the middle of town, yes. Less further out you get. I would say that here in the North of the city we're easily outnumbered by cars, but by the time I've cycled into the city centre proper there are probly more than twice as many bikes or more, mostly 'cos you can't drive anyhere very easily in the city centre.
> 
> Thats why some more unusual occurrences happen more often here, such as the example of having a stream of slow but assertive cyclists. I think its also why motorists here seem so much angrier than in much of the rest of the UK



Cambridge sounds to me like a cycling parallel universe or paradox.
As a London cyclist I'm interested to come up and see how this all 'works' for myself.


----------



## dondare (27 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> hi guys.
> i think everyone who uses the public roads should take a test
> on the highway code every five years.
> whats your thoughts??
> don


The Highway Code is not the Law, and the Law is what is important. I don't like the HC much, it's written by a committee, and a committee of non-cyclists at that.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Cambridge sounds to me like a cycling parallel universe or paradox.
> As a London cyclist I'm interested to come up and see how this all 'works' for myself.



Heres what its like some days:


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XA_Crc67SAM


Of course, most of those ones there will be students and I'm afraid they do tend to be a muppets (gutter huggers, undertakers and red light jumpers mostly  )

But if you ride about here for a while you can start to play with ideas as to how changing the way our roads are managed would work out, there are enough bikes here such that you see little pockets of different sorts of behaviour once in a while.


----------



## davidtq (27 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> Heres what its like some days:
> 
> 
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XA_Crc67SAM
> ...






wow thats nothing short of impressive. Motorists are complaining about the cyclists? Imagine if each of these cyclists was in their car one to a car, imagine the tail backs then....


----------



## tdr1nka (27 Mar 2008)

I love that clip Cab! For all the obvious faults you can understand that to a London cyclist Cambridge is a kind of Eutpoia!!


----------



## biking_fox (27 Mar 2008)

Cor there really are some muppets on bikes at times. Almost surprised you didn't manage to record and incident!

How long was that recorded over?

Yes if they were all in cars it would be bad to drive. But if they were all in Primary it would also be pretty bad.

It is good to see that many people on bikes though!


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

davidtq said:


> wow thats nothing short of impressive. Motorists are complaining about the cyclists? Imagine if each of these cyclists was in their car one to a car, imagine the tail backs then....



Or even imagine what it would be like if they all said "hang on a minute, look at all this traffic, I think I'll stay in primary position, erring towards filtering past on the right". Motorists wouldn't have a chance


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

biking_fox said:


> Cor there really are some muppets on bikes at times. Almost surprised you didn't manage to record and incident!
> 
> How long was that recorded over?
> 
> ...



I'm afraid it ain't one of my videos, although I do pass that spot very often.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I love that clip Cab! For all the obvious faults you can understand that to a London cyclist Cambridge is a kind of Eutpoia!!



Cambridge is a _different_ place to ride. Imagine sitting on your bike in primary an advance stop box, holding your arm out to turn left, and five seconds later some idiot cycles face first straight into your outstretched hand as he goes straight through the red light you're at. Sounds unlikely? Happened at least three times to me now. Or imagine you're on your way home, you get to a junction and wait at a red light, and you don't just see one RLJ scoot out past the line, you see eleven of them do so, and wait at a point where if anyone from the main road decides to turn left they'll have to dismount or otherwise scarper. Imagine a city where if you leave a bike and a halfs length between you and the car in front of you, there will be a bike in it, and when you look closely he hasn't got brakes but is instead using his foot to slow the back tyre... Then imagine the annual arrival of the overseas language students. Every summer, they come en masse, hire bikes (they've not ridden in years and never on the left), and procede to swarm around the city on the wrong side of the road (or, occasionally, 25 at a time on both sides), they can't fathom roundabouts so you see them terrified and clinging to the inner kerb going the wrong way around, and as for one way streets 

As I say, Cambridge is _different_.


----------



## wafflycat (27 Mar 2008)

Last time I cycled in Cambridge was towards the end of last year. Cycled into town from the outskirts, then cycled back up to Norfolk. Cycling *in* Cambridge wasn't a problem. I think perhaps the sheer number of cyclists means motorists expect to see you. Plenty of errant motorists seen and plenty of fools on bikes - many did indeed seem to be studenty-types. No problems experienced with either though. Mind you, as soon as my cyclking buddy & I got out of the city and crossed the A14, it was a different matter entirely as regards motorists. It was as if once out of the city, where the traffic was relatively slow moving, the drivers had decided 'great, I can get a move on now' and behaved like maniacs with a *noticeable* number overtaking too fast and too close. Not many by all means, but *enough* to notice the difference between in town & out of town. Then once out on to the fens, it quietened down again in terms of driver aggression.


----------



## Cab (27 Mar 2008)

The level of aggression you see on the outskirts (and you don't always have to cross the A14 to find it!) spreads into the city sometimes. Its difficult to say why, but there always seem to be 'angry weeks', often linked to how bad the traffic is around the outskirts of the city I think.


----------



## HJ (30 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> i rest my case.. you are all looking at the hwc..
> the 3mph is in the book...
> all road users should take a test ..
> what does everyone want less cars on the road??
> why?



So as a pedestrian (which who is according to the Highway Code a road user) I can't walk passed a line cars at 4mph (my normal walking pace)? There is nothing the Highway Code about the legal speed for filtering. I studied the Highway code thoroughly before taking my ADI part 1 (which I passed with 98%, but as you had to score 80% to pass that was pretty much expected), I was a full qualified DoT approved ADI for several years before giving it for financial reasons. 

How would you enforce this strange rule that all road uses should take a test, lock them in there houses and not let them out until they had passed?

Everyone is a road user at sometime. It is just that some think that because they are using motorised transport that they have some sort of greater privileged right of access. We have the right to use the road, we all also have a responsibility to not endanger others by our actions.


----------



## HJ (30 Mar 2008)

Cab said:


> I'm saying that were all cyclists to ride assertively and predominantly in primary position as they are encouraged to do, then they would cause gridlock in most of cities.



Cab I often ride in the primary position on the way in to work (mostly down hill), but when I cycle home, mostly in secondary there is still just as much gridlock. It is not the cyclist that are causing the congestion, it is the fact that there more cars on the road then there is road capacity. Hence even though I can't ride at 25 to 30 mph up hill and keep up with the speed of cars the way I do on the way to work. I still get home faster, because I can just filter past them once they have reached a bottle neck, which due to the limited capacity of our roads there are plenty.


----------



## HJ (30 Mar 2008)

dondare said:


> The Highway Code is not the Law, and the Law is what is important. I don't like the HC much, it's written by a committee, and a committee of non-cyclists at that.



The introduction to the HC clearly states that:


> Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.
> 
> Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.



Unfortunately the committee responsible for the writing of the HC is parliament, and we all know what a bunch of *$£^$£" they are. Sadly most of them don't cycle, but of those that do, none of them would ever RLJ would they...


----------



## BentMikey (30 Mar 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> Everyone is a road user at sometime. It is just that some think that because they are using motorised transport that they have some sort of *greater privileged right of access*. We have the right to use the road, we all also have a responsibility to not endanger others by our actions.



Even some cyclists think like this, but usually they are put right about their attitude pretty soon by the rest of us.


----------



## PBancroft (30 Mar 2008)

donnymac said:


> hi guys.
> i think everyone who uses the public roads should take a test
> on the highway code every five years.
> whats your thoughts??
> don



This is potentially going to be a little long winded, but you did ask...

Personally I wouldn't be against taking a test, but I can see why it would be difficult to roll it out for all road users. As other people have mentioned, pedestrians can cause road offences too, as can horse riders - both of which would be hard to roll out a test for. Also, these "other" road users are often drivers as well as cyclists etc - a point often missed. A way around this would be to have one catch all test, which would require all road users to be tested on two or more forms of transport. This would involve drivers choosing to take the test in a car, and one other, say bike or whatever. In turn these would have to be classified to prevent two similar tests being taken and allowing bias (e.g., car and minibus).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I think that for the sheer amount of bureaucracy that would be required to run such a system, the one we currently have is probably best suited to the job.

However (and I've said this before) I think we should have mandatory re-training and courses for all those who cause a traffic offence (however minor) on the first incident. This would be for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, UFOs, and yes, drivers. This would be at the cost of the person who causes the offence, not the tax payer. Drivers, cyclists, etc., can forgo the retraining if they want, but cannot use any vehicles on the public roads again until they do.

Let's do away with this rubbish "points" malarkey which almost encourages people to speed or drive dangerously because they know how many points they'll have to rack up before they lose their licence.


----------



## Arch (31 Mar 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> However (and I've said this before) I think we should have mandatory re-training and courses for all those who cause a traffic offence (however minor) on the first incident. This would be for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, UFOs, and yes, drivers. This would be at the cost of the person who causes the offence, not the tax payer. Drivers, cyclists, etc., can forgo the retraining if they want, but cannot use any vehicles on the public roads again until they do.




Excellent compromise - obviously, we'd rather there was no offence to begin with, but this might at least prevent a repeat. I fear it'll be bogged down in questions of blame though - when pride and money are at stake, I think a lot of people will go to extraordinary lengths to try and shift the blame. Did that pedestrian look right, left and right again, before crossing the road, or only right and left... The latter? And he was wearing an ipod (albeit with volume low enough to be able to hear over it, but who's to know that except the wearer?) Well then m'lud, he was to blame as much as I was for driving over the speed limit...


----------



## Tynan (31 Mar 2008)

a third of the drivers in London supposedly don't have insurance, gawd know about licenses and MOTs

I'd be worrying about that


----------



## 4F (31 Mar 2008)

Of course the other thing to take into this is if you wanted to have test for cyclists what age would this start from ?? My kids have been riding on the road with me since the age of 5. 

At the end of the day people already know what the rules are but bend them to suit their own needs and know how much they can get away with. I think a much better campaign would be to lower the drink drive limit to zero, everyone would know exactly where they were then without think "I should be OK with just one more"


----------



## Cab (31 Mar 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> Cab I often ride in the primary position on the way in to work (mostly down hill), but when I cycle home, mostly in secondary there is still just as much gridlock. It is not the cyclist that are causing the congestion, it is the fact that there more cars on the road then there is road capacity. Hence even though I can't ride at 25 to 30 mph up hill and keep up with the speed of cars the way I do on the way to work. I still get home faster, because I can just filter past them once they have reached a bottle neck, which due to the limited capacity of our roads there are plenty.



And thats quite fine, on many roads in some cities. Imagine all the slower pavement cyclists, the ones who aren't doing anything like a decent speed but who are going along at their own pace (which is fair enough). Take them and put them at junctions, maintaining primary as they should. It isn't cyclists causing congestion (they're not the majority road users, they aren't the problem), but they would certainly be restricting traffic speed and giving the impression of congestion to those behind them. No bad thing really, but not in any way the way we Brits treat our roads.


----------



## summerdays (1 Apr 2008)

I have one road where I become an obstruction - its uphill (A38 going south out of Bristol), its 3 lanes wide in a one way loop. Two of the lanes go back into town with traffic lights at the top of the road to make those lanes of traffic stationary. I'm in the left lane doing about 4 mph and it takes me about 2 or 3 minutes to do this section. In secondary position a car can get by ... anything else has to wait as it can't pass me with the other two lanes of traffic. I hate going up that hill with the engine noise of a lorry waiting behind me, and knowing that there is a load of cars behind that. 
It is the one place I would really like to have a shared path/cycle route - only the pavement isn't that wide.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Apr 2008)

I reckon the only way Cab's view will become the right one is because all those well-trained cyclists will help cause a huge movement towards cycling. With 2 or 3 times as many cyclists on the roads, car traffic will be so much reduced that the cyclists really will be the slowdown factor because now there are fewer jams to slow the cars up.

I know I wouldn't like to lose the satisfaction of filtering past so many vehicles!


----------



## HJ (1 Apr 2008)

This has turn out to be a really interesting thread, what happened to the troll? It hasn't posted recently...


----------



## gambatte (2 Apr 2008)

> I know. I'm still waiting for the link to the part of the HC that says that if passing on the inside lane you must be travelling at less than 3mph.



Its a hidden part of the HC, you have to enter it through a link on WWW.you'reabawbagcyclist.disorg.uk*




(link wont work)


----------



## Kerher (16 Apr 2008)

I know what you mean. I think that it should be mandatory everywhere! I am an American and don't see the same traffic that you do, but it is definitely a problem. Because they don't put many bike lanes up around here I take up a lane if I have to, too many people will try and pass with no room if I don't. Only Been hit once, but it was head on. Like all cyclists out there I have had plenty of near misses. Had one today in fact, lady was in middle turning lane and decided that she wanted to go the other direction when her light turned... nearly hit me as she took off and I was passing her 2 lanes over. Simply idiots!

I ride every day, except snow and ice, over 2 years now. Best part of my day!


----------



## Aperitif (16 Apr 2008)

Hello Kerher - enjoy your time here...don't forget to drop in at the café!


----------



## magnatom (16 Apr 2008)

gambatte said:


> Its a hidden part of the HC, you have to enter it through a link on WWW.you'reabawbagcyclist.disorg.uk*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But this very similarly titled website will work! http://bawbagcyclist.blogspot.com


----------



## gambatte (16 Apr 2008)

magnatom said:


> But this very similarly titled website will work! http://bawbagcyclist.blogspot.com



Mags plugging his fansite again!  


:?:


----------

