Nuxx:209e0927-44c1-4c53-aa83-02be4c0bf08a@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <209e0927-44c1-4c53-aa83-02be4c0bf08a@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Keep right at chicane. Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:51:54 -0700 (PDT) References: <2YSdndZTQdvK-s3XnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk>   <59ca5f79-a5e7-496e-a05d-09fbebe5b33a@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <6cb59a85-8b22-4c0b-b200-966cbe6b3d50@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <65u355ds2tn4nou5mht0bmn5ekbs3rt466@4ax.com>  <52c0fb8a-f39b-434d-ba09-3e333379f625@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 66 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.163.209.43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246996314 3552 127.0.0.1 (7 Jul 2009 19:51:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.163.209.43; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4954 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:715647

On Jul 7, 8:04=A0am, "Simon Mason"  wrote: > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > > news:52c0fb8a-f39b-434d-ba09-3e333379f625@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 6, 5:33 pm, "Simon Mason"  wrote: > > > > > "Judith M Smith"  wrote in > > messagenews:65u355ds2tn4nou5mht0bmn5ekbs3rt466@4ax.com... > > > >>I *have* been overtaken there on that very spot. I was shouted at by = a > > >>taxi driver who tried to barge past as I was riding to the left of th= e > > >>speed cushion. The fact that I was riding at 20mph and it is a 20mph > > >>speed limit did not seem to matter. > > > > I suppose the sensible approach would of course be to cycle to the > > > left of the bollard. > > > > Still - if you want to make a point and be killed than that will be > > > your choice. > > > No, you are wrong. The *sensible* choice is for the taxi driver to keep= to > > the speed limit and not overtake in such a stupid place, of course. > > Cycling > > to the left of the bollard would disobey the keep right sign. > > FFS! =A0Can you honestly not differentiate between a technical > triviality (exceeding The Holy Speed Limit) and genuinely bad driving > (overtaking in a blatantly inappropriate place)? =A0Why do you insist on > distorting the road safety debate by implying that the former is as > bad as the latter, when you must surely know really that it's not, and > that millions of responsible drivers do the former (but not the > latter) every day? > > Because the usual argument is that the cyclist is "holding up" a car by > cycling in front of them giving the driver no opportunity to overtake. In > this case, since I am riding at the speed limit, the driver behind *must > not*, in law, overtake me and the argument about being held up does not > apply.

Sorry, no need for the "FFS" there. I mean, I do think your speed limit-related opinions are bananas, but there was no need to swear at you...you are after all entitled to your opinions (I don't subscribe to the "Anyone who disagrees with me shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion and should be insulted and shunned if they do" nonsense that so many here do, and which is clearly the sole driving force behind the u.r.c.censored proposal).

As for what you said, well, that seems to me to be a similar argument to "If I go at 70mph on the motorway then I can drive in the rightermost lane all the time and no-one can complain because no-one should be overtaking me". I think either argument is a poor one, for several good reasons, not least because someone might decide that a certain speed is x mph when it's not (because their speedo isn't calibrated), and also because someone's numerical speed isn't the business of other road users (except the police)...defensive driving doesn't involve being nosey about other people's exact speeds and deciding off the back of that whether they "deserve" to be impeded or not. That's the wrong attitude. (Also emergency vehicles, which may be unmarked, are allowed to go faster than the speed limit. IMO you shouldn't ever need to consider whether someone else's speed is within their particular speed limit or not.)