Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.
CSI Trucknet are on the case already, no doubt.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.
Quite possibly, but they have a right to be there.
No blaming the driver in anyway, but some drivers truly show some unbelievable disrespect to cyclist on dual carriageways. I’ve seen toooooooooooooooo many drivers who could easily move into the outside lane…pass by very close…In some cases using the fact that other cars have moved into the outside lane…to take the opportunity to undertake at speed.
We have a regular…time trail cycle run…on a dual carriageway…on one of my routes…The cyclist are clearly marked up, have their back cycle light on…with stewards every so often along the route…so you know something is going on and there is more than one cyclist. You can even clearly see a number of cars moving into the outside lane…Yet there is always one or two drivers…whom will just ignore the obvious facts…and carry on in the inside lane…swinging slightly out at the last second…or try to last second hop infront of the car just overtaking the cyclist…This applies to lorry drivers also.
SHOCKING BEHAVIOUR!!! 
Scanner:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.Quite possibly, but they have a right to be there.
Using that logic they might as well allow cyclists to use motorways too being that there’s not much,if any,difference concerning the issues of speed differentials and/or fast moving traffic in lane 2 preventing vehicles in lane 1 from being able to overtake safely assuming they’ve had to slow down to the speed of the cyclists to maintain seperation distance. 
SuperSmiley:
No blaming the driver in anyway, but some drivers truly show some unbelievable disrespect to cyclist on dual carriageways. I’ve seen toooooooooooooooo many drivers who could easily move into the outside lane…pass by very close…In some cases using the fact that other cars have moved into the outside lane…to take the opportunity to undertake at speed.We have a regular…time trail cycle run…on a dual carriageway…on one of my routes…The cyclist are clearly marked up, have their back cycle light on…with stewards every so often along the route…so you know something is going on and there is more than one cyclist. You can even clearly see a number of cars moving into the outside lane…Yet there is always one or two drivers…whom will just ignore the obvious facts…and carry on in the inside lane…swinging slightly out at the last second…or try to last second hop infront of the car just overtaking the cyclist…This applies to lorry drivers also.
SHOCKING BEHAVIOUR!!!
Maybe it’s time the authorities started treating cyclists the same as other road users in that if they want to carry out competitive events then do it off the public highways or at least close the section of road in question.
Your spot on Carryfast,usually Sundays there is a cycle race taking place on the A303 as I head West it would be a ■■■■ site safer racing on the hard shoulder of the M3.
Carryfast:
Scanner:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.Quite possibly, but they have a right to be there.
Using that logic they might as well allow cyclists to use motorways too being that there’s not much,if any,difference concerning the issues of speed differentials and/or fast moving traffic in lane 2 preventing vehicles in lane 1 from being able to overtake safely assuming they’ve had to slow down to the speed of the cyclists to maintain seperation distance.
It’s not logic, it’s the law.
Armagedon:
Your spot on Carryfast,usually Sundays there is a cycle race taking place on the A303 as I head West it would be a ■■■■ site safer racing on the hard shoulder of the M3.
You can bet that if they allowed them to use motorways they’d want to use lane 1 not the hard shoulder because it would be their ‘right’ to be there.
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Scanner:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.Quite possibly, but they have a right to be there.
Using that logic they might as well allow cyclists to use motorways too being that there’s not much,if any,difference concerning the issues of speed differentials and/or fast moving traffic in lane 2 preventing vehicles in lane 1 from being able to overtake safely assuming they’ve had to slow down to the speed of the cyclists to maintain seperation distance.
It’s not logic, it’s the law.
No one’s saying it’s not the law but if the law wants to be stupid enough to allow cyclists to use what are effectively motorway class roads with traffic travelling at motorway type speeds then the law might as well also be stupid enough to allow the idiots to use motorways too.
Carryfast:
Scanner:
Carryfast:
Scanner:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.Quite possibly, but they have a right to be there.
Using that logic they might as well allow cyclists to use motorways too being that there’s not much,if any,difference concerning the issues of speed differentials and/or fast moving traffic in lane 2 preventing vehicles in lane 1 from being able to overtake safely assuming they’ve had to slow down to the speed of the cyclists to maintain seperation distance.
It’s not logic, it’s the law.
No one’s saying it’s not the law but if the law wants to be stupid enough to allow cyclists to use what are effectively motorway class roads with traffic travelling at motorway type speeds then the law might as well also be stupid enough to allow the idiots to use motorways too.
I’m not interested in your non-sequiturs, petty arguments, name-calling or subject manipulation. I pointed out that I was stating the law as it stands, not applying logic to to your comment.
That and nothing more.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.
+1… Some people choose to learn the hard way unfortunately…
What really winds me up is hypocrisy. When a truck driver is killed and mentioned on this site it is all condolences and think of the drivers family but when a car driver or a cyclist or a pedestrian there is a completely different tone.WHY?
albion1971:
What really winds me up is hypocrisy. When a truck driver is killed and mentioned on this site it is all condolences and think of the drivers family but when a car driver or a cyclist or a pedestrian there is a completely different tone.WHY?
I imagine it’s much the same on cycling and walking websites.
Exactly, take care of your own 1st…
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.
Agreed.
RIP to the two cyclists sadly killed in this accident.
My thoughts go out to their families at this sad time.
My thoughts also go out to the driver, he must be going through hell.
I am a keen cyclist as you can probably guess by the username, I cannot understand the cyclists decision to ride on the A30. I know the A30 very well and can safely say I would never even consider cycling it.
Scanner:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.Quite possibly, but they have a right to be there.
You are right.
I have the right to ride a 1000cc motorbike in a vest, shorts and flip flops, but I don’t because that would be stupid and careless wouldn’t it, see what I’m saying?
FarnboroughBoy11:
Scanner:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Playing with fire again riding along a dual carriageway.Quite possibly, but they have a right to be there.
You are right.
I have the right to ride a 1000cc motorbike in a vest, shorts and flip flops, but I don’t because that would be stupid and careless wouldn’t it, see what I’m saying?
According to the cyclist logic that wouldn’t be problem because the law says that you must wear a crash helmet and it’ll always save you when you run into the back of the truck that’s just had to move into lane 2 having slowed down to 20 mph to clear the cyclists in lane 1 using a dual carriageway,which is effectively the same a motorway from the point of view of the relative speeds involved. 