Jump to content

Highway Code Changes


faraway saint

Recommended Posts


2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

No, if you read the report instead of just watching the moving pictures, there was an explanation of what they could have done for the safety of everyone. emoji6.png

One person fell over, two didn't, aye, that's really dangerous.........................wearing them wee things on your feet I mean. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, divided opinion, understandable....................

One person wrote online: "Can’t see what he did wrong. Looks like she just fell over cos her feet were attached to her pedals. Maybe she just needs to learn how to get off her bike!"

Another person said: "What a waste of everyone's time" while someone else added: "Where’s the offence? Honestly struggling to see what he could have done differently."

One comment said: "I think he could have slowed a little bit more but I wouldn’t have blamed him for her falling off! This world has gone mad! That poor driver!", while another internet user added: "Honestly. If someone had been on foot, stepped to the side and fallen in a ditch, it most certainly wouldn’t have been the drivers fault. He left plenty of room."

Another woman said: "Laughable she was on the bike when the Land Rover went past - drama queens. Shouldn’t be in control of a bike if you can’t stay on it."

Another wrote: "Agree he should of slowed down or stopped, however no contact and as others say she only appeared to come off as others stopped and she couldn’t remove her feet from the foot holders on the pedals."

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Try looking at what folk that know what they are talking about instead of all the poppycock comments.

He admitted guilt. The end. emoji14.png

 

:lol:

Aye, a police, they are always a sensible bunch. :lol

He COULD have been driving slower, although not sure what speed he was doing but let's overlook the fact that two other cyclists did NOT fall over and he COULDN'T have given this 1.5m without driving into the field, correctly mentioned above.

Aye, dismiss other peoples views, it's divided opinion, that's understandable. 

Not sure how many people would have stopped and would this "outrage" have happened had the cyclist not fallen over? 

I do like the word "poppycock", always makes me smile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try looking at what folk that know what they are talking about instead of all the poppycock comments.

He admitted guilt. The end. [emoji14]

96089c7c5ce9fcc4555511caeb7012c7.jpg
But look at the effort the bully has gone to in a misguided effort to save face. Have you no compassion?

The number of people falling over is surely the key here. Not guilt or legality!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites



[emoji38]
Aye, a police, they are always a sensible bunch. [emoji38]
He COULD have been driving slower, although not sure what speed he was doing but let's overlook the fact that two other cyclists did NOT fall over and he COULDN'T have given this 1.5m without driving into the field, correctly mentioned above.
Aye, dismiss other peoples views, it's divided opinion, that's understandable. 
Not sure how many people would have stopped and would this "outrage" have happened had the cyclist not fallen over? 
I do like the word "poppycock", always makes me smile. 


So if a car was coming the other way what would they have done?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cookie Monster said:

It's not, the sensible answer is they'll pass sensibly.

If he'd done that with the cyclists then no matter what footwear they were wearing they'd all have continued their journeys safely.

Isn't there a responsibility on both parties?

IF the cyclists had stopped, pulled over they would have negated this scary situation.

Continued their journey safely, what, exactly, was the injuries to "them", or the one who fell off? 

Jeezo, what a plaver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

It's not, the sensible answer is they'll pass sensibly.

If he'd done that with the cyclists then no matter what footwear they were wearing they'd all have continued their journeys safely.

Here's a scenario, when I'm out walking the dog on a wee country road close to the house and a car approaches I pull the dog over to the verge and stop, most cars do not slow down but give me as wide a berth as they can, usually accompanied with a wave of acknowledgement from both parties.

I DON'T stride on expecting the motorist to do the "right thing" as that could end up in injury to me or the dog.

A two way street, as such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Here's a scenario, when I'm out walking the dog on a wee country road close to the house and a car approaches I pull the dog over to the verge and stop, most cars do not slow down but give me as wide a berth as they can, usually accompanied with a wave of acknowledgement from both parties.

I DON'T stride on expecting the motorist to do the "right thing" as that could end up in injury to me or the dog.

A two way street, as such. 

Perhaps you are missing the point of the new rules in which pedestrians and cyclists are required to be given space to remain safe with the onus, responsibility on the driver. However , there is a point to be made that neither pedestrians or cyclists would be advised to rely solely on the expectation that the drivers will act accordingly. The answer here was for the car to stop, the cyclist being able to pass with a friendly wave and everyone goes on without mishap or injury and in a happy frame of mind. The pedestrian dog Walker should take sensible precautions with the same outcomes.

Edited by Rascal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a scenario, when I'm out walking the dog on a wee country road close to the house and a car approaches I pull the dog over to the verge and stop, most cars do not slow down but give me as wide a berth as they can, usually accompanied with a wave of acknowledgement from both parties.
I DON'T stride on expecting the motorist to do the "right thing" as that could end up in injury to me or the dog.
A two way street, as such. 
Surely a made up scenario in the mind of a playground bully!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between the point @faraway saint and @Rascal are alternatively making is that where a pedestrian is concerned their vulnerability is upmost in their mind for cyclists and drivers there is always the arrogance whether it be unwitting or not of entitlement to the space no matter what the law or highway code says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StanleySaint said:

The difference between the point @faraway saint and @Rascal are alternatively making is that where a pedestrian is concerned their vulnerability is upmost in their mind for cyclists and drivers there is always the arrogance whether it be unwitting or not of entitlement to the space no matter what the law or highway code says.

Correct SS and this is the danger that is addressed in the new guidance and what will now be enforced by law. Rights have been prioritised. Pedestrians first, cyclists next and drivers last.

Edited by Rascal
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Isn't there a responsibility on both parties?
IF the cyclists had stopped, pulled over they would have negated this scary situation.
Continued their journey safely, what, exactly, was the injuries to "them", or the one who fell off? 
Jeezo, what a plaver. 


In this circumstance no, the law is quite clear.

Bruising and abrasions.


The palaver is that the cyclist can and could remove their shoes from the clips safely in normal conditions. As the driver was driving as he admitted without due care and attention then these weren't normal conditions.

Now I'm running late, Glasgow bound. Hope there's no cyclists in the west end that get in my way. [emoji2959]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:


 

 


In this circumstance no, the law is quite clear.

Bruising and abrasions.


The palaver is that the cyclist can and could remove their shoes from the clips safely in normal conditions. As the driver was driving as he admitted without due care and attention then these weren't normal conditions.

Now I'm running late, Glasgow bound. Hope there's no cyclists in the west end that get in my way. emoji2959.png

 

The "law" is quite clear right enough................People cycling are asked to be aware of people driving behind them and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when it’s safe to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "law" is quite clear right enough................People cycling are asked to be aware of people driving behind them and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when it’s safe to do so.
Relevance to the case under discussion?


Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Relevance to the case under discussion?


Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

Very little. Thought consensus had been reached. To restate simply: Every Road user has a duty of care which they are asked to apply to themselves and others. Nothing has changed there. What has changed and what was controversial is that priorities have been clearly established where pedestrians are afforded first place, cyclists second place and motorists third place. Again simply put: cyclists give way to Pedestrians, Motorists give way to either/ both pedestrians or cyclists. Can’t be clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Isn't there a responsibility on both parties?

IF the cyclists had stopped, pulled over they would have negated this scary situation.

Continued their journey safely, what, exactly, was the injuries to "them", or the one who fell off? 

Jeezo, what a plaver. 

If the driver had stopped, pulled over, he’d have had no fine to pay.  And all could have continued safely. And not lost both face and money.

Democracy could have been used.  Majority verdict wins.

One Big fast car loses to three wee bikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really IS quite clear:

 

"The guide distances should be increased in bad weather and at night. If you’re unable to overtake motorcyclists or other road users using the distances mentioned above, you should wait behind them until it’s safe to do so."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really IS quite clear:
 
"The guide distances should be increased in bad weather and at night. If you’re unable to overtake motorcyclists or other road users using the distances mentioned above, you should wait behind them until it’s safe to do so."
He was in front of them, not behind them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stlucifer said:

It really IS quite clear:

 

"The guide distances should be increased in bad weather and at night. If you’re unable to overtake motorcyclists or other road users using the distances mentioned above, you should wait behind them until it’s safe to do so."

Human decency should already have guided most people to a safe, responsible, decent conclusion.

Those without such sensibility need such laws (and penalties) to guide them towards the right decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Slarti said:
6 minutes ago, stlucifer said:
It really IS quite clear:
 
"The guide distances should be increased in bad weather and at night. If you’re unable to overtake motorcyclists or other road users using the distances mentioned above, you should wait behind them until it’s safe to do so."

He was in front of them, not behind them.

I was talking about distance. I probaly should have removed the last bit. My bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...