.

[Mercenary]

1 minute ago, James Blonde said:

Just ban cyclists from up there. It's not an alien concept as they're banned from motorways in the UK. 

Is the justification safety? If so should be any 2 wheelers surely, powered or unpowered 😁?

[Shake me up Judy]

They need to do something - but the one guarantee is that they won't. Sheer lunacy to have slow moving cyclists who might only be doing 4-5mph (Going up the mountain) on the same carriageway as some halfwit overtaking at 130mph because he can. What could possibly go wrong ?

[Annoymouse]

8 minutes ago, Banker said:

I always overtake cyclists if it’s safe to do so whether there’s double lines or not , it’s allowed 

 

12 hours ago, Happier diner said:

I doubt that will happen. Remember it's a code and not a law. You have the discretion. Woe betide if you get it wrong. 

Rule 129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

The only discretion being you have to determine whether their speed is close or around 10mph? Which causes me the issues that I would like changed. I need to slow down considerably to determine their speed, when in many cases the safest thing to do would be to maintain my speed (or even increase it) and overtake swiftly/safely regardless of whether they are doing 10mph or 20mph.

I was stuck behind one at Crosby jump the other day, they didn’t drop below 10mph until they reached towards the top of the Hill, when it would have been quicker/easier/safer to overtake at the start of the double white lines when they were doing 20mph, it’s an outdated code that really needs to be updated to reflect the capabilities of a modern bicycle and a modern car.

I was always told a ‘must’ or ‘must not’ is law and not just best practice.

 

[joebean]

Please can they make it clear that cyclists should not ride 2 or 3 abreast talking to each other and ignoring cars behind? 
Somebody ought to do a scientific study on the affect of Lycra on the human mind. It appears to turn normally functioning personalities into the delusional and arrogant who believe that anyone using the road whilst wearing clothing of other fabric, should give them right of way and treat them as if they were Mark Cavendish. It’s alarming and well worth some analysis. 

Edited December 31, 2021 by joebean

[Annoymouse]

3 minutes ago, joebean said:

Please can they make it clear that cyclists should not ride 2 or 3 abreast talking to each other and ignoring cars behind? 
Somebody ought to do a scientific study on the affect of Lycra on the human mind. It appears to turn normally functioning personalities into the delusional and arrogant who believe that anyone using the road whilst wearing clothing of other fabric, should give them right of way and treat them as if they were Mark Cavendish. It’s alarming and well worth some analysis. 

Same can be said for many vehicle drivers though, I’ve seen personalities change as soon as they sit in the driving seat, once the vehicle is in motion they adopt the mindset of a raving lunatic.

[ManxTaxPayer]

57 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

Just ban cyclists from up there. It's not an alien concept as they're banned from motorways in the UK. 

Licence to trill.

[monasqueen]

Cyclist should also be aware that when they are wearing dark clothing, they cannot easily be seen. Even Lycra should be dayglo and reflective.

Similarly, those that bother to have lights on their bikes at all should realise that a red light on the back is inadequate - someone driving in the opposite direction cannot see any reason why a car is pulling out into the middle of the road until it is too late. A front light on the bike does at least give a bit of a clue that a car coming up behind them might want to overtake. 

[ManxTaxPayer]

Lots of resentment towards cyclists on display here. 

[John Wright]

15 hours ago, Happier diner said:

I doubt that will happen. Remember it's a code and not a law. You have the discretion. Woe betide if you get it wrong. 

That’s wrong. Much of it has force of law and is mandatory.

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That’s wrong. Much of it has force of law and is mandatory.

I should have been clearer. Not where crossing a white line is concerned. You may overtake slow moving traffic if it is safe to do so. I think 18mph is quoted as slow. 

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I should have been clearer. Not where crossing a white line is concerned. You may overtake slow moving traffic if it is safe to do so. I think 18mph is quoted as slow. 

Correction 10mph. The discretion I was referring to was about judging if it safe to do so. 

[Mercenary]

2 hours ago, joebean said:

Please can they make it clear that cyclists should not ride 2 or 3 abreast talking to each other and ignoring cars behind? 
Somebody ought to do a scientific study on the affect of Lycra on the human mind. It appears to turn normally functioning personalities into the delusional and arrogant who believe that anyone using the road whilst wearing clothing of other fabric, should give them right of way and treat them as if they were Mark Cavendish. It’s alarming and well worth some analysis. 

If you read the updated UK code it states cyclists should ride in the middle of a lane rather than close to the kerb, so I don't think the Code supports your view.

[Annoymouse]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

I should have been clearer. Not where crossing a white line is concerned. You may overtake slow moving traffic if it is safe to do so. I think 18mph is quoted as slow. 

That isn’t what it says, unless you read the paragraph as one sentence, the bit that applies is here :

You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

4 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Correction 10mph. The discretion I was referring to was about judging if it safe to do so. 

There is nothing about judging the vehicles speed though, so unless you slow down to 10mph yourself, how would you establish their speed?

My biggest issue is I have a dash cam fitted, i know it’s unlikely but if a cyclist reports me for overtaking quickly on a double white line section then I have effectively hung myself with my own evidence, so I’ve no choice but to slow down and determine what speed the cyclist is doing rather than overtake without concern.

A lot of the Highway Code goes against common sense.

[Happier diner]

26 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

That isn’t what it says, unless you read the paragraph as one sentence, the bit that applies is here :

You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

There is nothing about judging the vehicles speed though, so unless you slow down to 10mph yourself, how would you establish their speed?

My biggest issue is I have a dash cam fitted, i know it’s unlikely but if a cyclist reports me for overtaking quickly on a double white line section then I have effectively hung myself with my own evidence, so I’ve no choice but to slow down and determine what speed the cyclist is doing rather than overtake without concern.

A lot of the Highway Code goes against common sense.

I don't disagree with you. The point I was making was that if you cause a serious accident by being on the wrong side of the white line you are "done diddly diddeley done for" regardless. You are quite right, it is impossible to ascertain the speed of a cyclist as their speed changes all the time and they could easily speed up just as you start to pass. You can only use your skill and judgement (and indeed your discretion). 

I don't think a cyclist would complain about you passing them on a stretch of road with a double white line. Its the traffic coming in the opposite direction that is the problem. As a cyclist myself I don't like having cars queuing up behind me and some drivers think if its a double white line then they cannot pass.  This can be very frustrating for other drivers and for me!

 

 

[A fool and his money.....]

18 hours ago, ManxTaxPayer said:

Seems a bit daft not to change the IOM one at the same time, or shortly after. Perhaps February or March. 

Why?