Yes, it's a belief, a strongly held one and one shared by many. But where did it come from? And even if it is enshrined in the Highway Code, why? Because motorists believe in their right to drive unhindered and as fast as they like on roads that once belonged to carts, horses, cyclists, walkers and the like. And even on roads that still belong to carts, horses, cyclists, walkers and the like, like the roads around here.
Yes, it is in the Highway Code that we should single out where it allows others to pass more freely. Why wouldn't we? If we were all pedestrians, those moving side by side at a slower speed and those approaching from the rear at a higher speed, wouldn't we choose to single out to let the faster walkers past? Of course. Not because of any rules and regulations but because we would not want to slow down other people more than we have to. I don't adopt a tribal approach and I see people as people, whatever their mode of transport, and if someone wishes to pass me and they can do it safely I will let them past, even if I have to single out to do so.
None of this excuses the angry outburst of the driver in this case.
Perhaps I should move up north! The last time I phoned the cops to report a car that sped past me, dangerously close and shouting abuse out of the window the officer didn't even want to take the reg number. He told me that there was no point as they would not pursue the matter.
Revolution wrote:Perhaps I should move up north! The last time I phoned the cops to report a car that sped past me, dangerously close and shouting abuse out of the window the officer didn't even want to take the reg number. He told me that there was no point as they would not pursue the matter.
Maybe just the practicality of not having a witness? One person's word against another's.
and if someone wishes to pass me and they can do it safely I will let them past, even if I have to single out to do so.
Yes and I often pull over to the side of the road if I feel I have delayed another vehicle for too long a time. After all I am not in a race ! None of this excuses the angry outburst of the driver in this case.
There's probably more than a little sexism working here as well. As in the poor little women, we must defend them. It's unfortunate by the establishment is generally institutionally sexist (and ageist as well) and a young male would have more than likely got the brush off.
Revolution wrote:Perhaps I should move up north! The last time I phoned the cops to report a car that sped past me, dangerously close and shouting abuse out of the window the officer didn't even want to take the reg number. He told me that there was no point as they would not pursue the matter.
What is most surprising about this case is that it was brought. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been brought, it is just in comparison to many other situations where a case wasn't brought. There have been many, many complaints to the police about far worse behaviour by drivers, and usually the police aren't interested in non-injury situations: even when someone has been badly injured or killed, getting a conviction for a realistic offence is difficult.
Elizabeth_S wrote:If I remember correctly it is wide enough for 2 normal-sized cars to pass, but can be a bit eeky with anything bigger.
That sounds like the sort of situation where singling out might allow a caravan to pass safely. Possibly. That could explain the frustration, but not, of course, the OTT response.
Nope. I use the A811 regularly. It's a road where even a solo cyclist can't be safely overtaken in the face of oncoming traffic. So IMO riding two abreast while it might annoy idiots should not delay drivers any more than a solo rider would. Especially with a caravan.
Revolution wrote:Perhaps I should move up north! The last time I phoned the cops to report a car that sped past me, dangerously close and shouting abuse out of the window the officer didn't even want to take the reg number. He told me that there was no point as they would not pursue the matter.
Maybe just the practicality of not having a witness? One person's word against another's.
It's partly that. In Scotland we need corroboration which short of video and no crash means 2 witnesses. As for the fact charges were brought. They might not have been a few miles further south in Glasgow. Stirling has quieter courts so maybe more likely to go ahead with these cases.
Though this part of the incident "Allegations that as well as shouting and swearing at the cyclists - which he admitted - he had, in addition, shaken his fist at them and swerved his car towards them, were dropped by the prosecution. " raises it above a "normal" bad overtake. I'd hope even in Glasgow it might have gone ahead.
Looks like a negotiation between lawyer and PF for a guilty plea for threatening behaviour in return for part of the case being dropped.
