On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:18:49 -0800 (PST)
"swldx...@gmail.com" <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:17:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 163
> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give
> motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
> would when overtaking a car.

The problem with that is "didn't hit anything" when overtaking another
car gets translated into "safe pass" by the average sub-standard
driver, likewise "only clipped his elbow with my mirror".

On 05/12/2021 02:18 pm, Rob Morley wrote:

> "swldx...@gmail.com" <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:17:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>> 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.

I wonder whether the term "single-track road" is what was really meant
there. on STRs, it's usually impossible to overtake because the
carriageway is literally only wide enough to handle one traffic lane
(serving both directions and with lay-by-style "passing places"). that's
what it means: one direction roads.

It seems to me that the meaning was single carriageway roads, which
might be anywhere from around 18' kerb-to-kerb to 40'+. Because of the
variation, no universal rule about exact or approximate clearances in
overtaking can be easily envisaged.

>> 163
>> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give
>> motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
>> would when overtaking a car.

Overtake a motor-cyclist?

A chance would be a fine thing, especially with a bus.

> The problem with that is "didn't hit anything" when overtaking another
> car gets translated into "safe pass" by the average sub-standard
> driver, likewise "only clipped his elbow with my mirror".

That would be a careless driving offence (and potential summons).

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:18:42 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:18:49 -0800 (PST)
> "swldx...@gmail.com" <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:17:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 163
> > Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give
> > motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
> > would when overtaking a car.
>
> The problem with that is "didn't hit anything" when overtaking another
> car gets translated into "safe pass" by the average sub-standard
> driver, likewise "only clipped his elbow with my mirror".

That's why the law has been reworded thus:

─ 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

You don't get door mirrors 1.5m wide. :-)

On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
> 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.

Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to obstruct.

>>>>> 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 cyclist, when all
> justification for the Code suddenly disappears.

For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.

On 05/12/2021 05:18 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:18:42 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
>> "swldx...@gmail.com" <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> 163
>>> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give
>>> motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you
>>> would when overtaking a car.
>
>> The problem with that is "didn't hit anything" when overtaking another
>> car gets translated into "safe pass" by the average sub-standard
>> driver, likewise "only clipped his elbow with my mirror".
>
> That's why the law has been reworded thus:
>
> ─ 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
>
> You don't get door mirrors 1.5m wide. :-)

What "law" is that?

Act, Section and sub-section, please.

Then the Statutory Instrument and the Regulation number.

Failing to answer means you're making it up.

On 05/12/2021 10:56 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to obstruct.

I have not suggested what his reasons might have been. It might have
been a mistake. It might have been mischief or malice. All of them
happen. There is no way that I can actually know which of them it was.

>>>>>> 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 cyclist, when all
>> justification for the Code suddenly disappears.
>
> For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.

"*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".

Why do you suggest that the rule exists?

On 05/12/2021 23:34, JNugent wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 10:56 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to obstruct.
>
> I have not suggested what his reasons might have been. It might have
> been a mistake. It might have been mischief or malice. All of them
> happen. There is no way that I can actually know which of them it was.

Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering through without
giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his wish".

>>>>>>> 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 cyclist, when all
>>> justification for the Code suddenly disappears.
>>
>> For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.
>
> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>
> Why do you suggest that the rule exists?

You have previously made a rule that one should not question the rules
our lords and masters have given us. But since you want to break your
own rule, and you raised the issue about obstruction, you make the
suggestion.

On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 23:34, JNugent wrote:
>> On 05/12/2021 10:56 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to
>>> obstruct.
>>
>> I have not suggested what his reasons might have been. It might have
>> been a mistake. It might have been mischief or malice. All of them
>> happen. There is no way that I can actually know which of them it was.
>
> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering through without
> giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his wish".

I wasn't there. Were you?

The fairy-cyclist involved in the story *was* there.
>
>>>>>>>> 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 cyclist, when all
>>>> justification for the Code suddenly disappears.
>>>
>>> For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.
>>
>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>>
>> Why do you suggest that the rule exists?
>
> You have previously made a rule that one should not question the rules
> our lords and masters have given us. But since you want to break your
> own rule, and you raised the issue about obstruction, you make the
> suggestion.

The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
wording, it can have no other purpose.

On 06/12/2021 12:09, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 05/12/2021 23:34, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2021 10:56 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to
>>>> obstruct.
>>>
>>> I have not suggested what his reasons might have been. It might
>>> have been a mistake. It might have been mischief or malice. All
>>> of them happen. There is no way that I can actually know which of
>>> them it was.
>>
>> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering through
>> without giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his wish".
>
> I wasn't there. Were you?
>
> The cyclist involved in the story *was* there.

We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would recognise the
situation.

>>>>>>>>> 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 cyclist, when all justification for the Code suddenly
>>>>> disappears.
>>>>
>>>> For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.
>>>
>>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>>>
>>> Why do you suggest that the rule exists?
>>
>> You have previously made a rule that one should not question the
>> rules our lords and masters have given us. But since you want to
>> break your own rule, and you raised the issue about obstruction,
>> you make the suggestion.
>
> The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
> wording, it can have no other purpose.

A pretty meaningless collection of words.

On 06/12/2021 11:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 06/12/2021 12:09, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2021 23:34, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 05/12/2021 10:56 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 02/12/2021 15:31, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>> Not at all. You are still speculating that the cyclist moved to
>>>>>  obstruct.
>
>>>> I have not suggested what his reasons might have been. It might
>>>> have been a mistake. It might have been mischief or malice. All
>>>> of them happen. There is no way that I can actually know which of
>>>> them it was.
>
>>> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering through
>>> without giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his wish".
>
>> I wasn't there. Were you?
>> The cyclist involved in the story *was* there.
>
> We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would recognise the
> situation.

And?
>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 cyclist, when all justification for the Code suddenly
>>>>>> disappears.
>
>>>>> For a person that loves rules, you're really struggling.
>
>>>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>>>> Why do you suggest that the rule exists?
>
>>> You have previously made a rule that one should not question the
>>> rules our lords and masters have given us. But since you want to
>>> break your own rule, and you raised the issue about obstruction,
>>> you make the suggestion.
>
>> The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
>> wording, it can have no other purpose.
>
> A pretty meaningless collection of words.

For fairy-cyclists, that merely means "I don't like the implications of
the rule because it spells out that I have responsibilities to others".

HTH.

On 07/12/2021 14:51, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/12/2021 11:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 06/12/2021 12:09, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:

>>>> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering
>>>> through without giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his
>>>> wish".
>>
>>> I wasn't there. Were you? The cyclist involved in the story *was*
>>> there.
>>
>> We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would recognise
>> the situation.
>
> And?

It means you're wrong and the cyclist was right. (Whch happens regularly.)

>>>>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake". Why do
>>>>> you suggest that the rule exists?
>>
>>>> You have previously made a rule that one should not question
>>>> the rules our lords and masters have given us. But since you
>>>> want to break your own rule, and you raised the issue about
>>>> obstruction, you make the suggestion.
>>
>>> The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
>>> wording, it can have no other purpose.
>>
>> A pretty meaningless collection of words.
>
> For cyclists, that merely means "I don't like the implications
> of the rule because it spells out that I have responsibilities to
> others".

Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying you
want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:21:53 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying you
> want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.

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 07/12/2021 03:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 14:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/12/2021 11:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2021 12:09, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>>> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering
>>>>> through without giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his
>>>>> wish".
>>>
>>>> I wasn't there. Were you? The cyclist involved in the story *was*
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would recognise
>>> the situation.
>>
>> And?
>
> It means you're wrong and the cyclist was right. (Whch happens regularly.)

That's your assertion for the purpose of trying to hold your position in
discussion. It has no validity.

>>>>>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake". Why do
>>>>>> you suggest that the rule exists?
>>>
>>>>> You have previously made a rule that one should not question
>>>>> the rules our lords and masters have given us. But since you
>>>>> want to break your own rule, and you raised the issue about
>>>>> obstruction, you make the suggestion.
>>>
>>>> The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
>>>>  wording, it can have no other purpose.
>>>
>>> A pretty meaningless collection of words.
>>
>> For cyclists, that merely means "I don't like the implications
>> of the rule because it spells out that I have responsibilities to
>> others".
>
> Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying you
> want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.

You really don't like rules that put responsibility on you, do you?

Neither, it seems, do most fairy-cyclists.

it's understandable.

On 07/12/2021 03:42 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:21:53 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying you
>> want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.
>
> 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. 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. 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.

Fairy-cyclists will ignore all of that.

> • give motorcyclists, fairy-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 fairy-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)

Do pedestrians ever complain of "close passes" like fairy-cyclists do?

> ─ take extra care and give more space when overtaking motorcyclists, fairy-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, fairy-cyclist, horse rider, horse drawn vehicle or pedestrian and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances.

That isn't a "change" at all.

On 08/12/2021 00:12, JNugent wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 03:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/12/2021 14:51, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2021 11:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 06/12/2021 12:09, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering
>>>>>> through without giving the cyclist enough time to "divine
>>>>>> his wish".
>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't there. Were you? The cyclist involved in the story
>>>>> *was* there.
>>>>
>>>> We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would
>>>> recognise the situation.
>>>
>>> And?
>>
>> It means you're wrong and the cyclist was right. (Whch happens
>> regularly.)
>
> That's your assertion for the purpose of trying to hold your
> position in discussion. It has no validity.

Translated into English this means you don't want to admit I'm right.

>>>>>>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake". Why
>>>>>>> do you suggest that the rule exists?
>>>>
>>>>>> You have previously made a rule that one should not
>>>>>> question the rules our lords and masters have given us.
>>>>>> But since you want to break your own rule, and you raised
>>>>>> the issue about obstruction, you make the suggestion.
>>>>
>>>>> The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given
>>>>> its wording, it can have no other purpose.
>>>>
>>>> A pretty meaningless collection of words.
>>>
>>> For cyclists, that merely means "I don't like the implications
>>> of the rule because it spells out that I have responsibilities to
>>> others".
>>
>> Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying
>> you want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.
>
> You really don't like rules that put responsibility on you, do you?

Inserting the word "responsibilty" is not a get out from an explanation.

> Neither, it seems, do most cyclists.
>
> it's understandable.

You don't want to suggest a reason. It's understandable.

On 09/12/2021 09:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 08/12/2021 00:12, JNugent wrote:
>> On 07/12/2021 03:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2021 14:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 06/12/2021 11:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 06/12/2021 12:09, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/12/2021 10:07 am, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Ah, then it could easily have been the driver blundering through
>>>>>>> without giving the cyclist enough time to "divine his wish".
>
>>>>>> I wasn't there. Were you? The cyclist involved in the story *was*
>>>>>> there.
>
>>>>> We had a video to look at. I daresay most cyclists would recognise
>>>>> the situation.
>
>>>> And?
>
>>> It means you're wrong and the cyclist was right. (Whch happens
>>> regularly.)
>
>> That's your assertion for the purpose of trying to hold your
>> position in discussion. It has no validity.
>
> Translated into English this means you don't want to admit I'm right.

You are not right. You were and are guessing as to the cyclist's motivation.

I declined and still decline to guess as to the cyclist's motivation
(for which there are more than one possibilities).

>>>>>>>> "*Never* obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake". Why do you
>>>>>>>> suggest that the rule exists?
>
>>>>>>> You have previously made a rule that one should not question the
>>>>>>> rules our lords and masters have given us.
>>>>>>> But since you want to break your own rule, and you raised
>>>>>>> the issue about obstruction, you make the suggestion.
>
>>>>>> The rule exists to prevent and ameliorate obstruction. Given its
>>>>>> wording, it can have no other purpose.
>
>>>>> A pretty meaningless collection of words.

What?
>
>>>> For cyclists, that merely means "I don't like the implications
>>>> of the rule because it spells out that I have responsibilities to
>>>>  others".
>
>>> Your "suggestion" was nothing more than the equivalent of saying you
>>> want a drink of water because you want a drink of water.
>
>> You really don't like rules that put responsibility on you, do you?
>
> Inserting the word "responsibilty" is not a get out from an explanation.

Fairy-cyclists shy instinctively away from th idea of their having any
responsibility for anything or anyone, even themselves.
>
>> Neither, it seems, do most cyclists.
>
>> it's understandable.
>
> You don't want to suggest a reason. It's understandable.

I declined to suggest a reason when there were several possibilities and
nothing to suggest one more than another.