beardy wrote:They could always do what motorists do now and just squeeze past in the same lane, giving even less clearance as they are so precise and unaware of the effect of the wind turbulence.
meic wrote:I was chatting to a guy on another Forum who said he had ridden from Milton Keynes to Carmarthen to visit his brother, it had only taken him one day. That journey would be a push for me to do in two days.
He explained that he just rode the A40 the whole way on his recumbent. He does that sort of thing on a regular basis and claims that he has little trouble at all. If people want to use cycles for serious personal transport, instead of running to the car with the slightest excuse, then we need to be able to use the flat direct routes that the Dual Carriageways monopolise.
Other wise it is just recreational or town use that bikes are good for and a car/mcycle is still required.
Edwards wrote:The post about cars in front of vans got me thinking about how visible recumbents are and remembered a discussion about riding one on country lanes. I can not find it but the basic gist was some people who do not ride them said they would not try them as they thought they could not be seen.
People who ride them said no real problems, so I wonder how much this is about how recumbents are perceived?
Or is it just a problem for all pedal vehicle users on dual carriageways as in the Time Trial thread. When somebody wanted them banned because he would not ride on this type of road?
Shootist wrote:TonyR wrote:Of course, Shootist being the good road user he is will have slowed down until he could see what this strange orange object was on the road and then acted appropriately to wait behind or pass it.
Being a good driver I noted that the road was empty of other road users as far as the eye could see both in front and behind. I had already noticed that the road was a dual carriageway, so I moved into lane 2, rather excitedly at such an opportunity, and passed this other vehicle at the proper distance, carefully observing the nature and design of this other vehicle for future reference.
It did, of course, cross my mind that the correct thing to do would be to accelerate and pass this vehicle at the highest possible speed, with about 1/16" clearance, or even to sideswipe it as I passed. What the hell, just drive straight into it. I was worried that I might have dismayed members of this forum by not doing so and thereby challenging their blind bigotry, but hey ho, life is more important.
reohn2 wrote:And not thought ''http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10801,what's he doing on the road in that thing,I think teach him a lesson and overtake him really close to frighten him''
But surely motorists never do that do they
[XAP]Bob wrote:I wonder what the response would be to a campaign to have de facto motorways degraded to "real roads" for all road users.
Shootist wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Would it be really pedantic to point out that contrast is the important thing about visibility.
Against a grey road surface the maximum visibility would be achieved by a white fairing HiViz would be counter productive
No, not pedantic, but rather more sensible than the trite, artless, and frankly quite stupid post you made previously. But then you can quote research that white is the best high vis colour for all road conditions. Or would you pass a law that limits such vehicles to grey or black road surfaces only?
But, here's my point. It seemed to me a very dangerous place to ride such a machine. It was relatively safe, IMO, at the time I was passing, but I could imagine several traffic scenarios where it wouldn't be. Now, I have no doubt that there will be howls of protest about the right to ride on dual carriageways, the responsibilities of other road users, and all the common objections. But who is the one that is going to end up in ICU if he's lucky, or in the Crem? I would advocate some very high vis accessories at the very least. I also now expect further howls of protest about the need for high vis items. But consider this, what if the vehicle I saw had been painted dark grey to match the average road surface?
We can all talk theory about responsibility of drivers, but there is little point in doing so when practice results in 50 yards of cyclist stained tarmac.
But, here's my point. It seemed to me a very dangerous place to drive such a car. It was relatively safe, IMO, at the time I was there, but I could imagine several traffic scenarios where it wouldn't be. Now, I have no doubt that there will be howls of protest about the right to drive a small family car on dual carriageways, the responsibilities of other road users, and all the common objections. But who is the one that is going to end up in ICU if he's lucky, or in the Crem? I would advocate some very high vis accessories to increase tis car's visibility at the very least. I also now expect further howls of protest about the need for high vis items on cars. But consider this, the vehicle I saw was in fact painted dark grey to match the average road surface?
We can all talk theory about responsibility of drivers, but there is little point in doing so when practice results in 50 yards of family stained tarmac.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests