[Closed] GOTD (Gammon Of The Day)

Cyclists will always argue, and rightly so, that they are more vulnerable than a person seated in a motorised tin box, but my main concern is that such regulations will serve to further widen the divide between cyclists and drivers when we should all attempt to understand that we have an equal right to use the Queen’s highway.

Except we don't. A driver can be banned, a cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian cannot.

Paul Hudson and Duncan Dollimore of Cycling UK interviewed together on R4 this morning.
Much more nuanced by Hudson than his article - possibly because he was faced by an opposing view and an interviewer.
Having said that, the article is ignorant and uninformed, pandering to the torygraph's readership.

Gonna get some 'Moral Superiority CC' club tops made who's in?

equal right to use the Queen’s highway.

Using that expression is peak Gammon.

But, if I’m in a car, do I want to be held up by a couple of Lycra-clad idiots

Pick a stereotype, anyone will do.

idiots impeding progress for apparently no reason?

Errr, that wouldn’t be for no reason, it would be so they are more visible and to lower the risk of being overtaken in an inappropriate place, therefore making it safer for everyone.

surely this proposal is likely to cause ire among car drivers who perceive that they are being baulked unnecessarily by apparently “road hogging” cyclists.

It strikes me that an article in a national newspaper about why cyclists may sometimes be better off riding 2 abreast would present a great opportunity to try to reshape drivers perception.

But apparently not, it's just the usual garbage full of logical inconsistencies.

What people always ignore is the fundamental asymmetry of cars vs cyclists and push a load of false equivalences.

Cyclists riding two a breast and causing inconvenience is not equivalent to being forced to ride in a less safe way on the road in case you upset drivers

Likewise, the argument on insurance for cyclists. Drivers kill cyclists, cyclists scratch cars. They aren't remotely equivalent.

Drivers worry about being inconvenienced by cyclist. Cyclists worry about being killed by drivers

"Drivers worry about being inconvenienced by cyclist. Cyclist worry about being killed by drivers"

I need this on a jersey

Car drivers drive two abreast even when they don't have any passengers the selfish bastards

Shorter version:

‘Now they want drivers to overtake people on bicycles CYCLISTS AKA LYCRA LOONIES DRESSED IN BLACK - with the same road safety requirements as horse or vehicle???? IT’S PC GONE MAD!!! (Where's my cheque?)

Have you noticed how nearly all anti-cyclist gammon rants seem to include a sentence along the lines of "as a keen cyclist myself".

FFS.

I was pleasantly surprised by how even handed that piece was... until he started going on about cyclists wearing black clothes and having a sense of moral superiority.

GTF

keen cyclist and car driver

aka non-cyclist and car nonce

“as a keen cyclist myself”.

and then

a couple of Lycra-clad idiots

I wonder just how keen he is.

Anyway two abreast is already in the Highway Code. Rule 66 currently says "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends", the modification is "ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast".

Hardly a dramatic change.

Hardly a dramatic change

Agreed, but the proposed wording is unhelpful.

“ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake" - that's every driver every time.

If it isn't, then how is the cyclist meant to understand the driver's wish? How can the driver communicate their wish to the cyclist? Sounding the horn? Excellent.

Cycling UK are proposing the wording be amended to:

[cyclists should] be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding with one another and in small or large groups. You can ride two abreast and it is often safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Switch to single file if you consider it safer to allow drivers to overtake.

That seems a bit clearer to me and introducing the word 'considerate' is a good move IMO.

A keen Tory cyclist

Have you noticed how nearly all anti-cyclist gammon rants seem to include a sentence along the lines of “as a keen cyclist myself”.

You can see his enthusiasm for cycling from his twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/paul_hudson_dt

Switch to single file if you consider it safer to allow drivers to overtake.

Clear as mud to me. It implies that it’s always ‘safer to overtake’ cyclists when cyclists are in single file

Example 1: Nearly had a head-on with a Discovery a few weeks back on the A449. Discovery decided that he’d ‘overtake ‘ two cyclists on a shallow tree-lined S-bend

Cyclists were single file. Takes longer (both time and distance) for a vehicle to overtake two cycle-lengths than it does to overtake (approx) one cycle length*

* (ie as when riding two or more abreast)

Luckily I (approaching) spotted the cyclists and made an auto-calculation of the likelihood of just such a knobber lurking around the bend. I slowed, reached the bend/trees and there he was coming straight at us.

If the cyclists had been riding abreast would it have made any difference? Would he have waited for safe and legal manoeuvre? Or would he have played the same impatience game and gone up the centre not when it was safe but when he’d ‘had enough of waiting’. (i assume, why else would he overtake two cyclists on a bend)

Example 2: Long ‘fast’ bends can be deadly for cyclists if they aren’t as visible/tucked in the shadows of trees single file. I nearly lost a riding buddy behind me to that scenario. If I’d been riding two abreast with him we’d have presented more like a ‘vehicle’ to drivers approaching from behind. As it was they just hug the bend at speed and don’t see until (nearly, in this case) too late. I still 26 years later remember that looooooong earsplitting screech of car tyres. I was braced to hear Phil being splatted. The car fishtailed and just missed him.

A lucky day.

But back to the question? How is it ‘clear’?

“ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake”

"...and it is safe to let them do so".

That seems a bit clearer to me and introducing the word ‘considerate’ is a good move IMO.

I agree. Way too many on both the motorist and cyclist side of the 'divide' are too self absorbed.

I am very very lucky to have so many quiet roads to ride, and drive come to that. Plenty are narrow enough that overtaking a cyclist is pretty much impossible. When I'm riding I'll slow and roll through a passing place or gate entrance to let a car/van past and most drivers are considerate enough to wait far enough back for me to get to the next sensible spot and not be right up my chuff. It's when the consideration stops that the hassle starts. Rolls reversed last week I was driving on a similar road and came up behind a cyclist. She knew I was there but felt no need to help me pass her. After a couple of miles and half a dozen suitable roll through spots of what would have been 8 miles at 10-11 miles an hour I pulled over to admire the view rather than get frustrated. Plenty of drivers would have just gone for it at that point and squeezed her into a gutter. I don't know if she had had a bad experience earlier in the ride, had no perception of the width of the road she was on and that she was impossible to pass safely or was just of the belief that it was not her problem but consideration of others was not high on her priorities. If everyone plays nice and can trust others to do so too we kind of rub along. When bellendery is met with more bellendery (or even preconceived or anticipated bellendery - "they are just another arse in lycra so I'll act like a dick") it all goes wrong very quickly.

I caught the end of the discussion on R4 this morning - he was more even handed than he was in that piece.

I caught the end of the discussion on R4 this morning – he was more even handed than he was in that piece.

Depends usually on the Outrage Quota required by commissioning editor

Red top or purple top piece? Which annoying/hated (or both) minority/group are we going to threaten the electorate with this week?

‘And how can we keep them on simmer for the purpose of future outrage-bait?‘

Have to sell papers/collect ad-revenue somehow. smh

“…and it is safe to let them do so”.

drivers seems to have a problem with me deciding when it is safe for them to overtake. I ride close to centre of road into blind bends and blinds brows but many still seem to overtake anyway (sometimes are beeping and shouting) and they seem surprised when a car comes round the corner and they have to stop mid overtake. After many years of experiencing this I can only conclude that they really don't give a shit about potentially knocking off a cyclist.

“ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake”

This is literally the opposite of what you should be doing. It's easier to overtake cyclists two-abreast than in single file, the exception being if you think it's OK to squeeze past with 6" of clearance.

It implies that it’s always ‘safer to overtake’ cyclists when cyclists are in single file

I dont think it does. Since it says "if you consider" with it being the cyclist who decides and doesnt place it as the default approach.

Except we don’t. A driver can be banned, a cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian cannot.

A driver can kill a cyclist about a million times easier than the other way around. This more than 'evens things up'.

I still don't get it. Who would want killing someone on their conscience at all? Let alone if it was only because they couldn't be arsed to wait for 30 seconds.

Being 'held up' by a cyclist rarely entails waiting more than 60 seconds for a safe place to overtake. And if it does, the driver is most likely using some narrow, twisting rural lane as a rat run - and sometimes that may not pay off in making their journey five minutes shorter. Tough titty.

drivers seems to have a problem with me deciding when it is safe for them to overtake.

Which is why it is often necessary for us to take that decision for them - see also approaching traffic islands.

When I’m riding I’ll slow and roll through a passing place or gate entrance to let a car/van past

Me too but segment times seem to be of primary concern to many.

introducing the word ‘considerate’ is a good move

Yes and it cuts both ways. It's a word which is already in use in the Highway Code by the way.

If anyone hasn't seen the proposed wording changes they are here.

This is literally the opposite of what you should be doing. It’s easier to overtake cyclists two-abreast than in single file, the exception being if you think it’s OK to squeeze past with 6″ of clearance.

A respectful qualified disagreement.

I agree that this is often the case but there are roads (of the country lane, no line up the middle variety) where I'd be uncomfortable overtaking cyclists two abreast whilst giving the outer one of the two sufficient room even if the road was physically wide enough and straight enough that I had plenty of time.

This is literally the opposite of what you should be doing. It’s easier to overtake cyclists two-abreast than in single file, the exception being if you think it’s OK to squeeze past with 6″ of clearance.

I regard 'riding out a bit' as in everyone's best interests. Me, the impatient driver behind and the oncoming vehicle they may well end up clipping.

Why people can't see this says a lot about the entitlement/security of being in a piece of potentially lethal heavy machinery felt by a lot of people.

I always love the ‘don’t wear black’ statements. If you can’t see the lights, the bicycle or, god forbid, a massive ****ing horse then you simply shouldn’t be driving in the first place. I wear reflective gear (some of it in colour and some black/grey) to help with being seen, but the onus shouldn’t be on the cyclist. It should firmly be on the car driver.

What's with the racist thread title.?

How is it racist unless you’re a pig that can read and take offence at the word gammon?

I always love the ‘don’t wear black’ statements. If you can’t see the lights, the bicycle or, god forbid, a massive **** horse then you simply shouldn’t be driving in the first place. I wear reflective gear (some of it in colour and some black/grey) to help with being seen, but the onus shouldn’t be on the cyclist. It should firmly be on the car driver.

Well lit, fully reflective is not the majority. Lets not pretend that there isn't a sizeable proportion of cyclists that think appropriate lighting is a shitty £1 light that you get with a new bike, or that thin reflective strap under your armpit, is appropriate for a dark rainy winter evening in a twisty bumpy country road whilst you are being blinded by oncoming yummymummys in their SUVS. I myself go for the Christmas tree effect.

Oh I agree, but it doesn’t alter the fact the onus is still on the car driver to look out for other, more vulnerable, road users. Expecting people to dress like Christmas trees is passing the buck imo. I’ve also witnessed a couple of nasty instances whereby somebody lit up like Vegas has still been hit. The best thing to do in my experience is to be really aware of what’s happening around you. Plenty of checking and cautious yet assertive riding. Like riding two abreast!

Speaking as a keen motorist, cyclists very rarely cause me any delay in my car journeys. Occasionally I’ll need to overtake a cyclist to rejoin the same queue of cars I was in before encountering the cyclist, it doesn’t slow me down at all.

Whereas I’m always being held up by other bloody drivers. Why don’t they get in the gutter and out of my way?

I didn't think anyone had the "right" to use a motor vehicle on the public highway and that using one is a permitted activity that can only be carried out if (theoretically) strict conditions are met 🤔

Essentially totally unlike pedestrian, equestrian or cycle use in other words...

I always love the ‘don’t wear black’ statements. If you can’t see the lights, the bicycle or, god forbid, a massive **** horse then you simply shouldn’t be driving in the first place. I wear reflective gear (some of it in colour and some black/grey) to help with being seen, but the onus shouldn’t be on the cyclist. It should firmly be on the car driver.

I don't understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don't understand why it's so fashionable.

Twice in recent weeks I've come across riders putting themselves in unnecccesary danger clad in all black. One in strong evening sun sitting low in the sky, with large trees at the side of the road. The dappled sun / shade effect made the rider really hard to see. My eyesight is perfect and I was doing about 45.
Next one was just one of those grey October days when the sun just can't be bothered and it's like dusk all day, with a bit of mizzle. Rider dressed in black Castelli, looking cool*.

It's not about drivers making a bad job of things, it's just a basic fact that matt black is harder to see. It's why SBS guys wear black and quarry guys wear high viz.

*looking like a bit of a tool really.

I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don’t understand why it’s so fashionable.

Twice in recent weeks I’ve come across riders putting themselves in unnecccesary danger clad in all black. One in strong evening sun sitting low in the sky, with large trees at the side of the road. The dappled sun / shade effect made the rider really hard to see. My eyesight is perfect and I was doing about 45.
Next one was just one of those grey October days when the sun just can’t be bothered and it’s like dusk all day, with a bit of mizzle. Rider dressed in black Castelli, looking cool*.

It’s not about drivers making a bad job of things, it’s just a basic fact that matt black is harder to see. It’s why SBS guys wear black and quarry guys wear high viz.

*looking like a bit of a tool really.

I get it - despite having black kit in my wardrobe. Rain jackets are all bright though with the logic that I'll be wearing them when it is proper grim.

OT but in the same manner - any car driver that drives a silver car in the rain on a motorway without their lights on really needs to sit in the driver's seat of a van or lorry and see what they look like in a wet wing mirror.

I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don’t understand why it’s so fashionable.

I'm not defending it though, just stating that it can be used to take the onus off the car driver. Reflective clothing is best imo. I have a black and grey jacket that, when light hits it, sparkles more than Robert Pattinson in Twilight. I'm not dead and have never been in an accident on the bike. Wonder if there are any stats relating to cyclists clothing choice and incidents. To Google!

I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black.

It's slimming?

A respectful qualified disagreement.

I agree that this is often the case but there are roads (of the country lane, no line up the middle variety) where I’d be uncomfortable overtaking cyclists two abreast whilst giving the outer one of the two sufficient room even if the road was physically wide enough and straight enough that I had plenty of time.

This. I mostly rode alone, frequently wearing black*, but if I happened to be riding with others, if I heard a car behind I’d alert the others and we’d ride single file - most of the country roads around here are a single track road with passing places, even B-roads can be narrow enough for cars to need to take care with vehicles coming from the opposite direction, it’s common sense and courtesy to allow other road users to be able to pass easily, and that includes overtaking a bunch of dawdling cyclists when on a bike and going faster than they are! Especially when they fill the entire width of the road, and act like panicked sheep when you come up behind and ring your bell, and they are all over the bloody place, not knowing how to just pull across to the left, rather wobbling about, braking, nearly falling off...
*But with reflective details a very bright lights.

I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don’t understand why it’s so fashionable.

Do you drive a neon yellow car?

If a car driver's eyesight is so bad that he cannot see a black clad cyclist, then he should be either driving slower, or simply not driving at all.

Or be driving to his nearest castle to test his eyesight.

but surely this proposal is likely to cause ire among car drivers who perceive that they are being baulked unnecessarily by apparently “road hogging” cyclists.

Its almost like someone should write down a set of rules for how everyone cooperates / behaves on the roads? Oh... they did you say... Well they should update them whenever new factors become apparent to help people understand how to use modern roads safely... what was the opening paragraph of the article about again?

If a car driver’s eyesight is so bad that he cannot see a black clad cyclist, then he should be either driving slower, or simply not driving at all.

Great in theory, but not so good in practice with so many unobservant drivers. I am sure their eyesight is adequate to drive but they are not actively looking for cyclists so a cyclist wearing all black riding down a shady b road is not going to be picked up.
I am an observant driver but I do think a cyclist in all black (from a distance) is much harder to observe than a cyclist in a bright colour.

My approach is why add to the risk of the less observant driver not seeing me so I never wear dark colours when cycling.

the exception being if you think it’s OK to squeeze past with 6″ of clearance.

What is this clearance of which you speak?

Have you noticed how nearly all anti-cyclist gammon rants seem to include a sentence along the lines of “as a keen cyclist myself”.

See also

"I'm not a racist, but"
"I'm all for gay rights, but"
"I'm not sexists, but"

Yes, a driver who turned left on a roundabout right across me (to the point my tyre left a mark on his back tyre!) came out with the "I am a cyclist".
I told him he should maybe stick to that and give up driving...

The double-breasted issue boils down to "sometimes abreast is best, sometimes single file is, you have to use your judgment". People hate that, they want rigid rules (preferably ones with loopholes in so they can get away with stuff).

This is exemplified by the way commentators talk of the "right" to ride abreast. There is no such thing, the law and highway code are all about duties not rights. As soon as you start thinking about road safety in terms of rights you are getting it wrong.

I'll admit to having some all-black cycling gear because it's practical when you ride on dirty roads in winter and years of experience of riding around in every day-go colour imaginable has taught me that wilful blindness to cyclists by some drivers means it doesn't matter what colour you wear / they'll still not "see" you.

That said, wearing all black without reflectives or lights in low-light / winter isn't a great idea - even good cyclists like Pete Longbottom, team mate of Chris Boardman was killed by a driver from behind and the coroner said his dark clothing was a contributory factor.

If the road is narrow enough that any overtake by a car means crossing the centre white line, then 2 abreast is OK by me - there's plenty of room to pass if you use the other side of the road. That said, some cyclists have poor observation, don't even notice there's a car behind them like the throbber who decided 2-abreast meant riding down the middle of a 2 lane road when we tried to overtake on the road to Cullen the other day.

If a car driver’s eyesight is so bad that he cannot see a black clad cyclist, then he should be either driving slower, or simply not driving at all.

At night, in the wet? I frequently drive through villages with peds in the usual black gear and the only reason I know something is there is because their dog has a flashy collar.

Dressing like a ninja and making your way along an A or B road just makes you an idiot. There are lots of things you can fault drivers for but not seeing something thats all but hidden isn't one of them.

I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black.

as a counter anecdote, last week I came up behind a fellow on a fairly upright touring bike, he had a full flouro yellow jacket, matching helmet (or helmet cover) and black tights.

It was near midday and the sun was out. A leafy, green treed country lane.

He had accidently almost perfectly camoflaged himself against the background! I genuinely think he would have been more visible in woodland camo.

It was a straight bit on an road that is curvy in places. I had a good long warning of him, but someone a few minutes later may have had far less warning.

All of which pre suppoeses that the driver is looking out of their windscreen. Not at a mobile phone which id in their right hand down by the grab handle on the door
A technique that is on the increase again with an alarming percentage i see daily.

First rule of road cycling for the fashion-conscious foo’:

‘Remove all of the reflectors’

I’d be uncomfortable overtaking cyclists two abreast whilst giving the outer one of the two sufficient room even if the road was physically wide enough and straight enough that I had plenty of time.

On country roads I ride as far from the kerb when riding on my own as i would do as the outer of two side by side cyclists.

On country roads I ride as far from the kerb when riding on my own as i would do as the outer of two side by side cyclists.

So just to clarify; on the link below (chosen hastily at random and only because it was on my driven commute this evening and will be on my ridden commute tomorrow morning), you would cycle across the very top of the the virtual B9007 on this streetview clip when on your own? ie in the outside car tyre 'trough' of the car going in your direction. For context this is the sort of width road where two cars can pass each other without slowing much but a car and a van would slow a bit more and creep their nearside tyres to the edge of the asphalt on their respective sides to go pass each other. I am totally comfortable being past as this point when on my bike.

https://www.google.com/maps/ @57.50876,-3.6991957,3a,75y,40.14h,73.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKlJAdHWz1miXYrTXq_Md_g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DKlJAdHWz1miXYrTXq_Md_g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.638466%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Hard to tell from a google pic like that but my normal position is around in line with a car driver so a little in from the outside wheels. ( on a narrow rod - when its wider I ride around 2 m from the edge) I will of course move in to let cars past but I control when not them. I will also go further out into the road on left handers even crossing the centre if a very tight corner and over to the left on right handers

But yes - on that road I would be making sure no car can pass unless there is no one coming the other way and there would be plenty of room for another cyclist alongside me to my left

even good cyclists like Pete Longbottom, team mate of Chris Boardman was killed by a driver from behind and the coroner said his dark clothing was a contributory factor.

... and that's why I dress like a luminous fairy on a christmas tree and have multiple reflectors, lights, helmet and a camera. I don't want my family sitting in a court hearing how it was all my own fault anyway - unless of course it actually was

I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don’t understand why it’s so fashionable.

Twice in recent weeks I’ve come across riders putting themselves in unnecccesary danger clad in all black. One in strong evening sun sitting low in the sky, with large trees at the side of the road. The dappled sun / shade effect made the rider really hard to see. My eyesight is perfect and I was doing about 45.

Dressing like a ninja and making your way along an A or B road just makes you an idiot. There are lots of things you can fault drivers for but not seeing something thats all but hidden isn’t one of them.

... and several other similar sentiments from other posters, I'm not singling anyone out particularly here.

This is dangerous thinking because it's a short hop from 'people not acting in their own best interests' to 'victim blaming.' It feeds the media narrative, and the public perspective, that they somehow deserved to be driven into. And it's a viewpoint that I find astonishing on of all places a cycling forum.

It's exactly the same argument as a rape victim "asking for it" by wearing a short skirt, or less emotively perhaps me leaving a mobile phone on a table in the pub then going to the loo and finding it gone when I get back. I should have been more careful sure, but that doesn't mean I deserve to be robbed. It doesn't make it my fault. Even if it's not a great idea, I have the right to leave a phone unattended without it being stolen, the right to wear a skirt (it's an analogy, quiet at the back) and not to be sexually assaulted against my will, and the right to wear a black hoodie on a pedal cycle without being killed to death by two tons of steel. My doing one of the things in column a does not in any way validate, justify or excuse the outcome in column b. End of.

Because, how often do we hear "he appeared out of nowhere"? What, the country is awash with teleporting cyclists? He didn't appear out of nowhere, rather you were either driving too fast for the conditions or not paying sufficient attention (or both). Look again at the anecdote in the first quote here. The cyclists were really hard to see, the driver was doing 45 in conditions which made visibility challenging and the conclusion (again, lest we forget, on a cycling forum) is "bloody cyclists" rather than "wow, that was close, I'd better be more careful." Once is understandable, we all make mistakes, but the fact it happened again later that same week after they'd already had a first-hand demonstration warning how hard people are to see is simply inexcusable. Sorry.

As drivers we have a duty of care towards more vulnerable road users and the fact that half of them are clearly morons of the highest order makes this more important, not less. A near-miss with a "ninja" isn't the fault of someone dressing like a ninja but the driver's failure to drive in a manner which takes into account the fact that there might be ninjas around. Have you adjusted your driving as a result, knowing now that this is a possibility? Or will we all be muttering "wasn't even wearing a helmet" and desperately grasping for the moral high ground when we're picking bits of cyclist out of our front grill?

Illuminated and reflective full length mudguards are the answer
Like some of the newer Porshce and Volvo have a full width red led rear light
A full length cycling version, not in dimlo stealth matt black but constructed in alternating red and yellow 3m Scotchlite bands with a nicr fat red led pipe 10mm in diameter running from the brake boss to the bottom

If you see it on dragons den..... You heard it here first

@Cougar - You’ve summed up what I was trying to get across. The fact that some cyclists feel the need to dress like the Vegas strip is rather sad. The responsibility should be firmly on the car driver to drive with caution and care.

The post above regarding how the cyclist was rear ended and lost his life, I just can’t fathom how it happens. If you have your lights on and are driving appropriately I fail to see how you could end up in that situation. Coming around a bend at inappropriate speed is the only scenario I can see that happening in.

If a victim is partly to blame, there is probably another victim, who is of course also partly to blame.

Lack of due care and attention, there's no other explanation for it.

You’ve summed up what I was trying to get across. The fact that some cyclists feel the need to dress like the Vegas strip is rather sad.

Yeah. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm assertive driver - I'll not use the term 'making progress' because some people do so like to invent their own definition of what that means in order to strawman it - and I understand that it's not practical to drive around at speeds where you might as well have a man running in front of the car waving a red flag. But nonetheless, whenever I turn the key I'm priming a potentially deadly weapon and if I hurt someone or worse then that's on me. If I can't stop in the distance I can see - including accounting for children "suddenly appearing" from between parked cars in residential areas - then I'm either driving too close or too fast.

Whether you drive like Sterling Moss or Grandpa Simpson, accept the responsibility for your actions or take the bus.