On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 15:20:08 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 02:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 13:40:28 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 30/11/2021 12:16 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
> >>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
> >
> >>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> >>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> >>>>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
> >
> >>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
> >>>> What does the word "never" mean?
> >>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
> >>>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
> >
> >>> Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
> >
> >> Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
> >> fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?
> >
> > Correct.
> The fairy-cyclist was obstructing a driver who wished to overtake.
>

How is that possible?

On 30/11/2021 03:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 15:20:08 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 02:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 13:40:28 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 12:16 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>>>
>>>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>>>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
>>>>>>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
>>>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>>>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
>>>>>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>>
>>>>> Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
>>>
>>>> Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
>>>> fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?
>
>>> Correct.

>> The fairy-cyclist was obstructing a driver who wished to overtake.
>
> How is that possible?

Do you say that it isn't possible? Not even by fairy-riding right out on
the crown of the road and refusing to move over to facilitate an
overtaking move?

On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 16:00:20 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 03:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 15:20:08 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 30/11/2021 02:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 13:40:28 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 30/11/2021 12:16 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
> >>>>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
> >>>
> >>>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> >>>>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> >>>>>>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
> >>>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
> >>>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
> >>>>>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
> >>>
> >>>>> Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
> >>>
> >>>> Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
> >>>> fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?
> >
> >>> Correct.
>
> >> The fairy-cyclist was obstructing a driver who wished to overtake.
> >
> > How is that possible?
> Do you say that it isn't possible? Not even by fairy-riding right out on
> the crown of the road and refusing to move over to facilitate an
> overtaking move?

Correct.

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:42:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> >
> > > A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
> > Not quite correct - THIS cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
> >
> > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium
> How did that cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty.

He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.

On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 17:10:05 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:42:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > >
> > > > A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
> > > Not quite correct - THIS cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
> > >
> > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium
> > How did that cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty.
> He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.

ISTR an event many years ago when a 'law abiding' driver crashed and blocked the M6 so all subsidised drivers were forced onto the A6 which happened to coincide with the Lancaster critical mass ride. Of course this meant it was all the cyclists' fault because motorists pay rude tax even though the primary road users were delayed as much as the road hoovers.

On 30/11/2021 04:55 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 16:00:20 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 03:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 15:20:08 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2021 02:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 13:40:28 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/11/2021 12:16 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>>>>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>>>>>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
>>>>>>>>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
>>>>>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>>>>>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
>>>>>>>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
>>>>>> fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?
>>>
>>>>> Correct.
>>
>>>> The fairy-cyclist was obstructing a driver who wished to overtake.
>>>
>>> How is that possible?

>> Do you say that it isn't possible? Not even by fairy-riding right out on
>> the crown of the road and refusing to move over to facilitate an
>> overtaking move?
>
> Correct.

Are you sure you can read and comprehend English?

On 30/11/2021 05:30 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 17:10:05 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:42:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
>>>>> A fairy-cyclist fairy-cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.

>>>> Not quite correct - THIS fairy-cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
>
>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium

>>> How did that fairy-cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty [?].

>> He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a fairy-cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.

> ISTR an event many years ago when a 'law abiding' driver crashed and blocked the M6 so all drivers were forced onto the A6 which happened to coincide with the Lancaster critical mass [fairy-cycle] ride. Of course this meant it was all the fairy-cyclists' fault because motorists pay rude tax even though the fairy-cyclists were delayed as much as the drivers.

I fixed a few errors that both of you had made.

No charge (that always gladdens the heart of a fairy-cyclist).

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:30:36 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 17:10:05 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:42:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
> > > > Not quite correct - THIS cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
> > > >
> > > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium
> > > How did that cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty.
> > He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.
> ISTR an event many years ago when a 'law abiding' driver crashed and blocked the M6 so all subsidised drivers were forced onto the A6 which happened to coincide with the Lancaster critical mass ride. Of course this meant it was all the cyclists' fault because motorists pay rude tax even though the primary road users were delayed as much as the road hoovers.

I have never heard Critical Mass featured in a road traffic warning though.

On 30/11/2021 06:22 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:30:36 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 17:10:05 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:42:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
>>>>>> A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
>>>>> Not quite correct - THIS fairy-cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium

>>>> How did that fairy-cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty.

>>> He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a fairy-cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.

>> ISTR an event many years ago when a 'law abiding' driver crashed and blocked the M6 so all subsidised drivers were forced onto the A6 which happened to coincide with the Lancaster critical mass ride. Of course this meant it was all the fairy-cyclists' fault because motorists pay rude tax even though the primary road users were delayed as much as the road hoovers.
>
> I have never heard Critical Mass featured in a road traffic warning though.

Oh, you moved to London, did you?

On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 18:22:14 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:30:36 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 17:10:05 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:42:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
> > > > > Not quite correct - THIS cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
> > > > >
> > > > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium
> > > > How did that cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty.
> > > He wanted to prove that the best way of holding up motor vehicles is to drive a motor vehicle yourself. After all, when was the last time a radio traffic report mentioned a cyclist as being the source of a traffic jam? It's never happened. It's either "sheer weight" (sic) of traffic, crashed cars or slow moving HGVs. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to jams.
> > ISTR an event many years ago when a 'law abiding' driver crashed and blocked the M6 so all subsidised drivers were forced onto the A6 which happened to coincide with the Lancaster critical mass ride. Of course this meant it was all the cyclists' fault because motorists pay rude tax even though the primary road users were delayed as much as the road hoovers.
> I have never heard Critical Mass featured in a road traffic warning though.

It was a long time ago. M6 was closed because of an 'accident' and subsidised traffic was diverted onto the A6. Since we are told all congestion is caused by cyclists Critical Mass was blamed

On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that cyclists should obey Highway
>>>>>>> Code Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to
>>>>>>> pass").
>>>>
>>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to
>>>>>> overtake until it is safe. Which on single track roads,
>>>>>> especially, means don't blast past, causing the cyclist to
>>>>>> wobble.
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to
>>>>> pass" EXISTS?
>>>>
>>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>>>
>>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow
>>>>> justify failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>>>
>>>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
>>>
>>> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion"
>>> as to when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says,
>>> simply and explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".
>>
>> It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.
>
> Nonsense. The cyclist clearly obstructed a driver who wished to
> overtake - a patent breach of HC Rule 168, which provides that such
> obstruction is something which should *never* be done.

The cyclist can be seen to move. The reason you give is your opinion only.

> What does the rule say?
>
> "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".

Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I go to the
police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they should
have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".

You're completely barking.

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> immediately pull over as I close the gap.

I wanted to overtake a tractor pulling a trailer loaded with sugar beet today which was only doing 15mph on a 60mph road, i.e.about as fast as a cyclist. The driver of the tractor did not pull over to let me pass, so I had to wait until it was "safe and legal" to pass as the HC describes. I did not spit out my dummy at being "held up".

On Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 17:57:11 UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
> > On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >> On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
> >>> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that cyclists should obey Highway
> >>>>>>> Code Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to
> >>>>>>> pass").
> >>>>
> >>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to
> >>>>>> overtake until it is safe. Which on single track roads,
> >>>>>> especially, means don't blast past, causing the cyclist to
> >>>>>> wobble.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to
> >>>>> pass" EXISTS?
> >>>>
> >>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
> >>>
> >>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow
> >>>>> justify failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
> >>>>
> >>>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
> >>>
> >>> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion"
> >>> as to when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says,
> >>> simply and explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".
> >>
> >> It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.
> >
> > Nonsense. The cyclist clearly obstructed a driver who wished to
> > overtake - a patent breach of HC Rule 168, which provides that such
> > obstruction is something which should *never* be done.
> The cyclist can be seen to move. The reason you give is your opinion only.
> > What does the rule say?
> >
> > "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> immediately pull over as I close the gap.

Stop confusing the issue with inconvenient facts.

> If they don't I go to the
> police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they should
> have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".

Nujents would enjoy that far too much.

>
> You're completely barking.

I think he is more like Upminster.

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:36:32 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 17:57:11 UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> > On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
> > > On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> > >> On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
> > >>> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> > >>>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
> > >>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that cyclists should obey Highway
> > >>>>>>> Code Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to
> > >>>>>>> pass").
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to
> > >>>>>> overtake until it is safe. Which on single track roads,
> > >>>>>> especially, means don't blast past, causing the cyclist to
> > >>>>>> wobble.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to
> > >>>>> pass" EXISTS?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
> > >>>
> > >>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow
> > >>>>> justify failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
> > >>>
> > >>> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion"
> > >>> as to when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says,
> > >>> simply and explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".
> > >>
> > >> It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. The cyclist clearly obstructed a driver who wished to
> > > overtake - a patent breach of HC Rule 168, which provides that such
> > > obstruction is something which should *never* be done.
> > The cyclist can be seen to move. The reason you give is your opinion only.
> > > What does the rule say?
> > >
> > > "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
> > Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
> > slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> > immediately pull over as I close the gap.
> Stop confusing the issue with inconvenient facts.
> > If they don't I go to the
> > police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they should
> > have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
> Nujents would enjoy that far too much.
>
> >
> > You're completely barking.
>
> I think he is more like Upminster.

The late Medjob would say "Dagenham".

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:36:32 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

>
> >
> > You're completely barking.
>
> I think he is more like Upminster.

The late Medjob would say "Dagenham".

On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that cyclists should obey Highway
>>>>>>>> Code Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to
>>>>>>>> pass").
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to
>>>>>>>  overtake until it is safe. Which on single track roads,
>>>>>>> especially, means don't blast past, causing the cyclist to
>>>>>>> wobble.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to
>>>>>> pass" EXISTS?
>>>>>
>>>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>>>>
>>>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow
>>>>>>  justify failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>>>>
>>>>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion"
>>>> as to when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says,
>>>> simply and explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".
>>>
>>> It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.
>>
>> Nonsense. The cyclist clearly obstructed a driver who wished to
>> overtake - a patent breach of HC Rule 168, which provides that such
>> obstruction is something which should *never* be done.
>
> The cyclist can be seen to move.

Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?

> The reason you give is your opinion only.

I have not speculated on the fairy-cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
overtaking driver.
>
>> What does the rule say?
>> "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>
> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I go to the
> police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they should
> have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".

It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct a
driver who wishes to overtake).

You know better than the Code, do you?

> You're completely barking.

That looks like a mirror job. Fairy-cyclists here are usually pretty hot
on the Highway Code.

Well, unless they don't like one or more of its rules, of course. Where
that happens, they just ignore it.

On Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 20:39:51 UTC, JNugent wrote:

> I have not speculated on the fairy-cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
> overtaking driver.

Once again , how is it possible for a Lammasu-cyclist to obstruct a subsidised road user.

>
> That looks like a mirror job. Fairy-cyclists here are usually pretty hot
> on the Highway Code.

What do Xorn-cyclists have to do with this discussion?

On 01/12/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:

>> The cyclist can be seen to move.
>
> Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?
>
> I have not speculated on the cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
> overtaking driver.

Don't be stupid.

>>> What does the rule say? "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to
>>> overtake".
>>
>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not
>> have to slow down when I come up behind another driver because
>> they will immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I
>> go to the police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they
>> should have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
>
> It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct a
> driver who wishes to overtake).

I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
to work.

>> You're completely barking.

I am expressing a fact.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:25:44 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
> to work.

I "wish" that all of the traffic getting in MY way would go away.
Bless.

On 02/12/2021 09:25 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 01/12/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/12/2021 05:57 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2021 12:19, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>> The cyclist can be seen to move.
>>
>> Of course he was moving. Who says he wasn't?
>>
>> I have not speculated on the cyclist's reasons for obstructing the
>> overtaking driver.
>
> Don't be stupid.

You're getting a bit past the mark now, lad.

>>>> What does the rule say? "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to
>>>> overtake".
>>>
>>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have
>>> to slow down when I come up behind another driver because
>>> they will immediately pull over as I close the gap. If they don't I
>>> go to the police and tell them that a certain JNugent told me they
>>> should have their bottom smacked for not respecting my "wish".
>>
>> It's the *Highway* *Code* which tells you what NOT to do (obstruct a
>> driver who wishes to overtake).
>
> I know the word "wish" is used by the HC. Explain how it is supposed
> to work.

The vehicular equivalent of "body language".

it is never difficult to divine that the driver or rider wishes to
overtake. If there were, there would be no point in the existence of
Rule 168. And the HC cannot, apparently, be wrong. Well, not unless it
imposes a duty or responsibility upon a fairy-cyclist, when all
justification for the Code suddenly disappears.
>
>>> You're completely barking.
>
> I am expressing a fact.

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> immediately pull over as I close the gap.

There is a new law change in the HC next month.

Rule 163.

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should …
• stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
• give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).
As a guide:
─ leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
─ pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph and allow at least 2 metres of space
─ allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where there is no pavement)
─ take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night

IMPORTANT CHANGE ─ you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

On 02/12/2021 05:22 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have to
>> slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
>> immediately pull over as I close the gap.

> There is a new law change in the HC next month.

> Rule 163.

> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should …
> • stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
> • give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).

> As a guide:
> ─ leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
> ─ pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph and allow at least 2 metres of space
> ─ allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where there is no pavement)
> ─ take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather (including high winds) and at night

None of that reflects a change in the law. The word "must" would
otherwise appear. And it doesn't, does it?
>
> IMPORTANT CHANGE ─ you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

"Should", not "must".

PS: I like the bit: "Fairy-cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary
traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the
driver may not be able to see you".

Surely proceeding with caution is totally outside the capabilities of
the average fairy-cyclist?

Are you going to complain about that wording?

swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have
>> to slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
>> immediately pull over as I close the gap.
>
> There is a new law change in the HC next month.
>
> Rule 163.
>
> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should .
> . stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the
> queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass
> on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on
> their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may
> not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on
> the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is
> safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
> . give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles
> at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules
> 211 to 215).
> As a guide:
> ? leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up
> to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
> ? pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph
> and allow at least 2 metres of space
> ? allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when
> passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where
> there is no pavement)
> ? take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists,
> cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad
> weather (including high winds) and at night
>
>
> IMPORTANT CHANGE ? you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist,
> horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it
> is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

Sounds ever so VERY exciting!
Did you have another wank over this?
Why have you not ever made an original posting to this group? Any cunt can
copy/paste.
Have you been a cunt for all of your life?
Have you been a wanker for all of your sad life?
Have you ever had a fuck?

On 3/12/21 14:06, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have
>>> to slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
>>> immediately pull over as I close the gap.
>>
>> There is a new law change in the HC next month.
>>
>> Rule 163.
>>
>> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should .
>> . stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the
>> queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass
>> on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on
>> their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may
>> not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on
>> the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is
>> safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
>> . give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles
>> at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules
>> 211 to 215).
>> As a guide:
>> ? leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up
>> to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
>> ? pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph
>> and allow at least 2 metres of space
>> ? allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when
>> passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where
>> there is no pavement)
>> ? take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists,
>> cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad
>> weather (including high winds) and at night
>>
>>
>> IMPORTANT CHANGE ? you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist,
>> horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it
>> is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.
>
> Sounds ever so VERY exciting!
> Did you have another wank over this?
> Why have you not ever made an original posting to this group? Any cunt can
> copy/paste.
> Have you been a cunt for all of your life?
> Have you been a wanker for all of your sad life?
> Have you ever had a fuck?
>
>
>
>
What is it to you?

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:07:21 AM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:57:11 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> >
> >> Right... the next time I go out in my car, I will expect to not have
> >> to slow down when I come up behind another driver because they will
> >> immediately pull over as I close the gap.
> >
> > There is a new law change in the HC next month.
> >
> > Rule 163.
> >
> > Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should .
> > . stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the
> > queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass
> > on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on
> > their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may
> > not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on
> > the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is
> > safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
> > . give motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles
> > at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules
> > 211 to 215).
> > As a guide:
> > ? leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up
> > to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
> > ? pass horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles at speeds under 10 mph
> > and allow at least 2 metres of space
> > ? allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when
> > passing a pedestrian who is walking in the road (for example, where
> > there is no pavement)
> > ? take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists,
> > cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and pedestrians in bad
> > weather (including high winds) and at night
> >
> >
> > IMPORTANT CHANGE ? you should wait behind the motorcyclist, cyclist,
> > horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it
> > is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.
> Sounds ever so VERY exciting!

Don't visit urc if you don't want to read about cycling matters - simple.