[Closed] ****** beardy ******* cyclist.

RudeBoy

Driving. Does this apply to cycling? And why aren't more tractor divers nicked, then? And you'd need to prove you were 'inconvenienced'. I somehow doubt 'I was delayed for a minute or two' would hold a lot of weight in court...

It would almost certainly apply to any vehicle on the road. The same way the offence of drink driving can be applied to cyclists. More tractor drivers aren't arrested because a) people dont report them and b) policing is relatively low key on rural roads.

FWIW there was a case recently in the Republic of Ireland where a tractor driver was banned from driving for 12 months for holding up a queue of cars behind him, one of which was a police car. He apparently failed to pull in at 6 potential places. The rules of the road in Ireland are virtually identical to the uk.

In that case the Judge took particular exception to the fact that the farmer "acted in an arrogant and individualistic manner" and "forced others to drive at 15 mph"

Bored now.

[img] [/img]

Night.

(Gets confused by post below)

(Predicts that someone will post something I supposedly said, then deleted, to try and win points, but all they will achieve is a massive FAIL because I already know that they will do that. Hence, if anyone, say Gnargnar, for example, posts something I supposedly posted then deleted, they will be making it up, and look a bit foolish)

The same way the offence of drink driving can be applied to cyclists.

RudeBoy -
It seems yet again I am out of my depth in the face of some factual information as opposed to my own speculation. I am sick of having to edit and re-edit my posts on the fly to make them seem somewhat relevant so I'll just feign boredom in order to save some face.

Night.

Fair enough.

aracer -

Really? How many drivers ever get prosecuted for an offence of drink driving which can also be applied to cyclists?

Drunk in charge of a vehicle. Applies to any vehicle, I thought.

Where did you get that Rudeboy posting auto-translator?

LOL!

Quote functions good, innit? You can say all sorts, and pretend someone else said it!

I'll have a go:

GNARGNAR - Member
You're just too good to be true
Can't take my eyes off of you
You'd be like heaven to touch
I wanna hold you so much
At long last love has arrived
And I thank God I'm alive
You're just too good to be true
Can't take my eyes off of you

Pardon the way that I stare
There's nothing else to compare
The sight of you leaves me weak
There are no words left to speak
So if you feel like I feel
Please let me know that it's real
You're just too good to be true
Can't take my eyes off of you

I love you baby and if it's quite all right
I need you baby to warm the lonely nights
I love you baby, trust in me when I say
Oh pretty baby, don't bring me down I pray

Oh pretty baby, now that I've found you stay
And let me love you baby, let me love you

You're just too good to be true
Can't take my eyes off of you
You'd be like heaven to touch
I wanna hold you so much
At long last love has arrived
And I thank God I'm alive
You're just too good to be true
Can't take my eyes off of you

WOW! Stunning!

Drunk in charge of a vehicle. Applies to any vehicle, I thought.

I think I've worked this one out - I just append

Rudeboy - Member
A load of twaddle

aracer

It does, but that's not exactly what drivers get done for.

Oh I'm just confused now, I was just replying to Rudeboy's speculation that inconsiderate driving might not apply to cyclists because it says cycling, not driving.

Was speculating myself that the offence of drunk in control of a motor vehicle can also apply to a boat or a bike etc, it's just a case of changing the wording. Maybe I am simplifying.

I'll put you out of your misery - the relevant section which motorists get done for says:

If a person .... is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence

Probably being rather pedantic, as the point you're attempting to back up with this is correct - it's just this is something where the law is specifically only relating to motor vehicles (speeding in restricted areas is another, though IIRC you can get done for exceeding the NSL on a bicycle 😀 )

I wonder how long before somebody jumps in to claim a gratuitous 100 - still lurking, Fred?

aracer - Member
I'll put you out of your misery - the relevant section which motorists get done for says:
If a person .... is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence

ie it's being over the limit, not being drunk. There is no equivalent law for cyclists - you're quite within your rights to refuse a breath test.

Interesting. I wonder do the majority of police officers know that, I'd imagine they would figure out a way to badger you into taking some form of sobriety test - like threaten to arrest you for breach of the peace if you didnt or such like.

They're perfectly entitled to ask you to take some sort of sobriety test - that is after all the only means they have of "proving" whether you're drunk in the absence of a breath test - just not to breathalise you (or at least a refusal can't be held against you). If you can still walk in a straight line and touch your nose with your eyes shut after 5 pints then you're untouchable.

Have we steered this totally OT yet?

Hopefully I wont be cycling drunk again anytime soon. Last time I attempted it the wife found me slumped in the kitchen, food hanging out of my mouth, clothes and skin ripped to shreds.....I couldnt walk let alone cycle but that didnt deter me from trying....I fell off. A lot.

Not allowing a driver to pass might be naughty but it's a perfectly proper way of safe assertive cycling, check National Standard. Smee, you'd have no chance in Central London or anywhere where properly trained cyclists ride. None of my trainees will let a car hooting at them pass, no way Jose!
If someone is running for a gap because they're scared of a car behind - get trained. You are less of a man and more of a sissy.
Lastly, you cannot be done for cycling under the influence of alcohol. Dangerous/inconsiderate cycling - yes, drink cycling - nope. Hence loads of pub crawls with bikes around here.

Hairychested - correct me if i'm wrong but the last time I was in London I didn't see much in the way of rural singletrack roads.

Hairychested - wrong on both counts. On single track roads slower vehicles are advised to pull in to let faster ones past and not doing so can and often is an offence of inconsiderate driving. People have been prosecuted for not allowing faster drivers to pass. This is totally different from being in London. A single track road is different as overtaking is never possible without the co operation of the person being overtaken.
[img] [/img]

There are two offences with regard to drunk driving. Driving with a blood alcohol level above the threshold - that applies to motor vehicles only but also the offence of driving while unfit thru drink or drugs for which there is no threshold level and that applies to cycles, horses, and any wheeled vehicle on thee road

I haven't read it all so sorry if it has only been posted...

But was the road going uphill? How long where the passing places?

The real question is where the passing places long enough to allow you to overtake the cyclist without him having to slow down or stop.

If not I think you have not right to complain...

Juan - nothing to do with how long the passing places are. the uphill bit might have some bearing tho in terms of politeness.

Single track roads in the highlands are a special case - if the cyclist does not let the car past the car could be stuck behind him for 20+ miles hence the signs as above and hence the fact that people have been prosecuted for not allowing cars to pass.

Is their journey more important than mine, or their need to get past me more important than my safety?

Well both journeys are equally important. However as a cyclist, pulling over on a climb takes only a few seconds, where as being stuck behind someone winching themselves up a climb could well cost minutes. So the cyclist should therefore pull over in all fairness.

If someone is running for a gap because they're scared of a car behind - get trained. You are less of a man and more of a sissy.

I hope this is a joke. Otherwise, I will never come to you for cycling instruction! I pull over not because I'm scared, but because I'm nice. Is that ok? Or would proper training get rid of that particular weakness?

Heh! This one still going?

Loving the armchair lawyers on here! even arguing amongst themselves!

We haven't actually ascertained that this particular cyclist was actually breaking any law, really, given the somewhat slanted account given to us by Glupton.

if the cyclist does not let the car past the car could be stuck behind him for 20+ miles

That, I can understand. That would be well out of order. But that wasn't the case here, was it?

I have repeatedly asked Glupton how long was he actually held up for, but so far, he's refused to actually provide an answer.

The reality; Glupton was held up for a teensy bit, by a cyclist who praps mightuv pulled over to let him pass. Glupton, a person known for his impatience and occasional over-reaction, got pissed off and started beeping his horn. S'possible the cyclist took this as an aggressive act, and decided not to let Glupton pass, to 'teach him a lesson'.

Glupton gets all het up about this, gets his knickers all coiled up to the point of garotting, and then comes on here to vent his spleen.

S'not a big deal. Worse things happen at sea.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the two chances I missed last night , when in front of goal. I think I need to work on my composure, as I snatched at both attempts. And I concede I'll have to go some, to repeat my last game's Romario-esque wonder strike; cross in from left, took down with me right, smashed it in with me left peg. Good night Vienna.

Did almost score with a looping header, but just off the crossbar.

And we wooduv had more, if their keeper weren't so fat.

Rudey - the debate should be about road behaviour, not whether or not the OP was right or wrong, don't you think?

No. That's boring.

I'm more concerned that we had 3 good players out last night, and one of our best ones has a foot injury.

Mind, some encouraging signs; Good, solid defence kept them out very well. Considering their superior skill levels, it's a wonder we won at all.

RudeBoy - Member
A load of rubbish about some stupid sport nothing to do with cycling or singletrack roads

I don't know where you passed him Smee you kept the exact details of your own actions very vague, why we can only speculate about. So did he pull over at the third passing place or did you pass him safely on the road.

Smee - thought you might be interested that yesterday I found myself in the position of the cyclist in the story. Your thread was on my mind.

I didn't pull in at the first passing place as it was a steep hill, if I had stopped it would have been very difficult to get moving again. Driver didn't sound horn - he had seen me check over my shoulder and so knew I was aware he was there. When I pulled in at the next one - I got a polite wave and a little hoot.

Further up the road same thing happened again. Again I was on a steep hill and maintaining my momentum was more important than maintaining his. When I glanced back at this driver - he obviously thought I felt pressured by him as he dropped back. Again he waved politely when he finally got past.

Of course I also waved politely to acknowledge their patience. All-in-all a very pleasant experience of shared road use on a quiet scottish country road!

And your point is what? My route had no hills and no reason not to pull into the passing places. Passing places were long enough and wide enough to allow me to pass with no negative effect on their speed or safety - IF they had used them.

Gluptonesque: a posting technique involving the invention or extrapolation of a situation, with care given to ensure that the said situation may provoke one of two opposing viewpoints. Best undertaken by posting then waiting for the almost inevitable squabble, which is then sustained by occasional interjections to maintain the seemingly recalcitrant position taken by the original poster.

See: 'Left in the dust', 'my child fell so I hit him' etc.

Length: Often over 100 posts, serving to;

a) bolster the already inflated ego, and

b) amaze and astound those who know what's going on....