Poor driving from someone who should have known better.

[Tenacious Sloth]

16 pages!

I’m off to the helmet thread for a little light relief.

 

[Phil Fouracre]

16 pages!

I’m off to the helmet thread for a little light relief.

I think I’m with you there!😄

 

[Deleted member 26715]

16 pages of debate on a subject with a clear and simple answer. A cyclist wants to cross a road used by drivers. Any sensible cyclist stops and waits until the way is clear and it is safe to do so. The design, construction, layout of the local piece of infrastructure is irrelevant. Stop. Stay safe. Only an obstinate fool would insist on trying to enforce a perceived right of way.

Problem being that the first 3 posts after the OP that he was incorrect & had assessed the situation incorrectly, what a rational person would have done was question themselves, realise it was an error of judgement & learn from the experience, however that was not what the OP decided to do & as far as I can tell still is of the mindset that the van should have given way to him.

 

[Phil Fouracre]

Problem being that the first 3 posts after the OP that he was incorrect & had assessed the situation incorrectly, what a rational person would have done was question themselves, realise it was an error of judgement & learn from the experience, however that was not what the OP decided to do & as far as I can tell still is of the mindset that the van should have given way to him.

Summarised perfectly, and correctly👌

 

[Jody]

I’m off to the helmet thread for a little light relief.

@Fnaar

 

[MontyVeda]

No such thing in law. It's cycleway with right of way on foot, or a highway with right of way on cycle or foot. "Shared footway" is a bulldog phrase ...

'shared footway/path' is much less of a mouthful than 'cycleway with right of way on foot' ...does anybody actually speak like that? and the less said about a 'highway with right of way on cycle or foot', the better, m'lud.

I think you're just being pedantic to the extreme.

 

[Brandane]

Problem being that the first 3 posts after the OP that he was incorrect & had assessed the situation incorrectly, what a rational person would have done was question themselves, realise it was an error of judgement & learn from the experience, however that was not what the OP decided to do & as far as I can tell still is of the mindset that the van should have given way to him.

If it was a new member, it might have been called trolling; but RR has been round quite a while now. So it's not trolling, it's good old fashioned arrogance.

 

[Starchivore]

gosh this is a long one

 

[mjr]

'shared footway/path' is much less of a mouthful than 'cycleway with right of way on foot' ...does anybody actually speak like that? and the less said about a 'highway with right of way on cycle or foot', the better, m'lud.

No, for short, we just write "cycleway" because almost all of them do allow walking and no-one bothers to police the few that don't. Much less of a mouthful than "shared footway" and more encouraging to cycling, which we need more than ever right now.

I think you're just being pedantic to the extreme.

And you're just being contrived.

 

[mjr]

gosh this is a long one

Yes, but what about the thread?

 

[MontyVeda]

No, for short, we just write "cycleway" because almost all of them do allow walking and no-one bothers to police the few that don't. Much less of a mouthful than "shared footway" and more encouraging to cycling, which we need more than ever right now.


And you're just being contrived.

round these parts we generally call them 'the old railway' because that's exactly what they are.

 

[roley poley]

Should we get professor Stanley Unwin in to explain it to those who haven't got it yet

 

[Ajax Bay]

it's not difficult to see why it's better for the cyclist to press a button, stop the traffic and carry on safely in the knowledge that the traffic has stopped for them.

Sorry, 'fraid I disagree. Having to stop (all the time - ie at each such crossing) press a bloody button wait for the lights to change and check motor vehicles are stopping, and proceeding, is NOT 'better'. A good proportion of cyclists would just be on the road, as they're entirely entitled so to be, instead, to the detriment of the motor traffic's average speed.
I like @mjr 's default green for peds/cyclists and 'red for motor/road vehicles' with a sensor to optimise traffic flow (both ways). And to suggest on the open road that motor vehicles will roar up towards red lights, expecting them to change is in variance with reality. But the chances of that (green for cyclists) is an aspiration that few other than @mjr will hold their breath for.

 

[mjr]

I'm not holding my breath for it either - but it would be a great improvement to the beg buttons and placebos we currently have!

 

[Drago]

If it was a new member, it might have been called trolling; but RR has been round quite a while now. So it's not trolling, it's good old fashioned arrogance.

Ooh, that's a bit harsh. I too think he's wrong, but no one is perfect. He's clearly a decent enough chap and a pleasant member of our little community, so it must surely be possible to disagree without getting silly over it?