MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front.

So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights
change.

And then you are stuck on the inside of a queue of vehicles

No, you're between two vehicles in the normal position in the road.

that may be turning left and whose drivers may not have seen you.
That's why you need to get to the front.

Umm, no. The vehicles behind you can see you - because you're in front
of them. Not in a potential blind spot in the gutter. The vehicles in
front of you don't need to know you're there, because you're behind them
and not overtaking them.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front.

Why the impatience?

What I said. You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do
with impatience.

********.

Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that
you're meant to overtake stuff...?

Not at a queue at a junction.

Well, no, you're not actually MEANT to overtake queues at junctions
anyway.

That's totally irrelevant.

Clearly.

How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway?

Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"?

Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of
the road?

Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway?

Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling
and basic road positioning.

On 23 Oct, 11:10, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front.
So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights
change.
And then you are stuck on the inside of a queue of vehicles

No, you're between two vehicles in the normal position in the road.

that may be turning left and whose drivers may not have seen you. *
That's why you need to get to the front.

Umm, no. *The vehicles behind you can see you - because you're in front
of them. Not in a potential blind spot in the gutter. The vehicles in
front of you don't need to know you're there, because you're behind them
and not overtaking them.

If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front.
Why the impatience?
What I said. *You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do
with impatience.

********.

Obviously the people who designed those green areas at the front don't
agree with you.


Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that
you're meant to overtake stuff...?
Not at a queue at a junction.

Well, no, you're not actually MEANT to overtake queues at junctions
anyway.

That's totally irrelevant.

Clearly.

How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway?

Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"?

Either that or leapfrog over the vehicles. I can't imagine what you
have in mind.


Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of
the road?

Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway?

By taking a fairly rigid bicycle through a two-foot gap at right
angles to the direction of traffic.


Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling
and basic road positioning.

It seems to me that you've never seen a road. Maybe you've seen one
described in a book and misunderstood.

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

What I said. Â*You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do
with impatience.

********.

Obviously the people who designed those green areas at the front don't
agree with you.

No, they're to help the impatient survive despite their best efforts.

How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway?

Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"?

Either that or leapfrog over the vehicles. I can't imagine what you
have in mind.

Fairly straightforward, I'd have thought.

Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of
the road?

Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway?

By taking a fairly rigid bicycle through a two-foot gap at right angles
to the direction of traffic.

Umm, why are you putting yourself into the position where you have to DO
that?

Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling
and basic road positioning.

It seems to me that you've never seen a road. Maybe you've seen one
described in a book and misunderstood.

Are you talking to yourself again? Because I well understand that, for
cyclists, there's rather more to the road than the gutter and "the bit
for cars".

On 23 Oct, 12:56, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

What I said. *You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do
with impatience.
********.
Obviously the people who designed those green areas at the front don't
agree with you.

No, they're to help the impatient survive despite their best efforts.

How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway?
Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"?
Either that or leapfrog over the vehicles. *I can't imagine what you
have in mind.

Fairly straightforward, I'd have thought.

Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of
the road?
Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway?
By taking a fairly rigid bicycle through a two-foot gap at right angles
to the direction of traffic.

Umm, why are you putting yourself into the position where you have to DO
that?

Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling
and basic road positioning.
It seems to me that you've never seen a road. *Maybe you've seen one
described in a book and misunderstood.

Are you talking to yourself again? Because I well understand that, for
cyclists, there's rather more to the road than the gutter and "the bit
for cars".

I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might
make a difference to a cyclist.

Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of
cyclists shouldn't be on the road, and if they weren't then it
wouldn't make any difference to them whether anyone indicated. No
doubt that would work.

I won't waste any more time on this.

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might
make a difference to a cyclist.

Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight.

Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of cyclists
shouldn't be on the road

Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of my
killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying, then
your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills.

I won't waste any more time on this.

shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you
continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of HGVs
at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue.

On 23 Oct, 13:06, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might
make a difference to a cyclist.

Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight.

Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of cyclists
shouldn't be on the road

Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of my
killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying, then
your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills.

I won't waste any more time on this.

shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you
continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of HGVs
at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue.

From decades of cycling experience (and survival) I politely pointed
that it is helpful to cyclists if vehicles use indicators correctly.
To justify your suggestion that use of indicators makes no difference,
you have heaped abuse on me. Kindly desist.

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators
might make a difference to a cyclist.

Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight.

Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of
cyclists shouldn't be on the road

Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of
my killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying,
then your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills.

I won't waste any more time on this.

shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you
continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of
HGVs at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue.

From decades of cycling experience (and survival) I politely pointed
that it is helpful to cyclists if vehicles use indicators correctly.

Nobody has said otherwise, if you bother extracting your head from your
arse long enough to actually read what has been written.

To justify your suggestion that use of indicators makes no difference,

My suggestion that IN THIS INSTANCE it was unlikely that indicators would
have made a difference, since somebody had clearly ****ed-up major league
with or without them being used...

Anybody with a lonely working neuron and a quarter of a clue doesn't rely
on the other idiots on the road indicating correctly, helpful though it
undoubtedly is. As a result, they don't put themselves in stupid
situations where they become reliant on a lack of indication being
correct.

Meanwhile, you made out that you had absolutely no choice but to cycle
down the left of traffic waiting at traffic lights, and it weally, weally
wouldn't be your fault if that resulted in your suicide.

shrug I'm starting to hope it does.

you have heaped abuse on me. Kindly desist.

Kindly **** off, as you've already promised you would, you sanctimonious
bore.