Allotments 4 All
General => The Shed => Topic started by: flowerofshona2007 on December 03, 2009, 08:59:44
-
Ok i drove home last nigh and passed/saw 31 bikes on the road of those only 2 had lights on front and back !!
What i dont understand is this... If its illegal to ride a bike in the dark without lights front and back why are bikes not fitted with lights when they are made ???????? If i buy a car, motorbike they have lights fitted.
If i drive down the road with no lights on my car i will get stopped, but bike riders are ignored !
I laugh when i see the 'Think bike' adverts, why should i think about them if they can not think about themselves and take responsablity for their own safety ! a small flashing light on a ruck sack is not legal, lights at the front are needed to give drives a fighting chance to see them :-\
Why can manufactures not be made to put dynamo lights on ALL new bikes ??
Sorry just makes me mad that car drivers are ment to see idiots in dark clothes with no lights on in the dark.
-
Bicycles are not supplied with lights because it's up to the rider whether they want to ride in the dark. That makes it an optional extra.
Lights have to be removable so they are liable to get nicked if they are left on the bike. If they are made permanent on the bike then they are an unnecessary weight for those who only cycle during daylight hours.
Like you, I'm amazed at the number of cyclists who ride in the dark without lights. I can only assume that they are blind australians who are unaware that it is winter in the northern hemisphere. If they weren't so difficult to see from a distance I would have more time to aim my car at them and swipe them off the road before they cause any other motorist some grief.
-
But i could say i don't drive my car at night and dont need lights ??? not sure i would get away with that on the MOT ;D
If all bikes had lights fitted like in Holland there would be no need to nick bike lights.
-
Car lights are a very small proportion of the total weight of a car. If you fix lights to a bike then you have the weight of the battery (or dynamo) AND the mountings. That is a much greater relative weight on a bike. For those of us who only cycle in the daylight, the addition of unnecessary lights would be an unwelcome imposition.
-
The new lights are very light and the answer to the weigh is not to have so much in the rucksack ;D sorry the weight issue does not hold up when you are talking about safety of both the bike rider and the car drivers ! And its the law at the end of the day.
When i rode to school we had to pass a cycling test and all bikes where checked as they left at the end of the day to make sure the lights where on, no lights no riding a bike to school ! why they do not do this now is behond me !
Don't get me wrong i agree with more bikes but why should drivers have to abide by the laws of the road and bkies not have to ???
-
And the ones who ride without lights are the ones who ALWAYS jump the lights, ride on the pavements, and ride the wrong way in one-way streets. And they are also the ones who wear dark clothing. >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
And the ones who ride without lights are the ones who ALWAYS jump the lights, ride on the pavements, and ride the wrong way in one-way streets. And they are also the ones who wear dark clothing. >:( >:( >:( >:(
I don't jump lights, I don't ride on the pavement and I don't ride down the wrong way on one-way streets. I don't have lights on my bike and I don't ride in the dark.
That's your theory debunked. ;D
-
Well you in a BIG minority !!!
We saw 2 bikes last night nip onto the pavement to avoid the traffic lights, 3-4 scraped down the side of cars one almost took the paint of one car, one shot onto the pavement to avoid a que of traffic nd a few ccled over a zebra crossing, not getting OFF their bikes!
But this is about bikes having lights fitted and the argument that 'I dont cycle in the dark' does not hold up or there would not have been so many doing just that last night and evey night !
Sorry but its not one rule for cars and motor bikes and one for cyclists, saftey is for all !!
-
When one of my sons was in his early teens he and his friend had gone for a bike ride in the country, one Sunday afternoon. They didn't have lights because they weren't planning to be out in the dark. However, one of them got a puncture or something, can't remember what, which they managed to repair but it delayed them. No mobile phones in those days.
They were both too worried about riding back home (probably not more than 3-4 miles) in the dark so found their way to the nearest house and my OH had to take the car out to pick up 2 bikes and 2 boys. I was relieved they didn't risk riding the lanes in the dark with no lights.
So even if you only ride in the daytime - there is always the chance you will get stuck without lights.
-
It's not just cyclists.
Pedestrians need to think about wearing something light to make them visible. I have good eyesight and drive carefully (defensive rather than wimpy) but have had several near misses on dark winter mornings with pedestrians in dark clothes leaping out to cross the road without looking first as they rush to or from their morning train or head for their first class of the day. - It's a school and university town with a fast train to Brussels.
We can all do things to make ourselves more visible on foot or bicycle and all need to be more aware of other road users for the safety of all.
-
We love going on bike rides and i have got caught without lights !!. We decided to go for a bike ride with the little ones we both have a child seat on the back of out bikes and our son rides his own bike. We did the Bristol to bath cycle track set off quite early picnic in tow by the time we got there and had our picnic it was starting to get dark. Wasn't late but very overcast luckily there was an Argos close by and we fitted the adult bikes with lights (my son already had some) By the time we got home it was dark. Yes i do know it wasnt planned very well but all was good in the end and we had a great day ;D
So like asbean said there is always a chance that you'll get stuck without lights!
And weight isn't really that much of a problem unless your a racer! and even a racer wouldn't go out racing in the dark with no form of lighting!Would they???
Its the cyclists that don't wear helmets that worry me and the parents that don't insist that the kids wear one. Seen far to many accidents involving cyclists not wearing helmets to ever consider not wearing one!
Lucy x
-
Well you in a BIG minority !!!
Yes, there are lots of cyclists who obey the rules of the road.
The post I was replying to said "ALWAYS". I was pointing out the error in the statement.
Sorry but its not one rule for cars and motor bikes and one for cyclists, saftey is for all !!
Agreed. However, you have to agree that I'm quite safe without lights on my bike when they would never be switched on because I don't ride in the dark. Cars are different because it's feasible to have permanently attached lights with no weight problem.
-
I don't have lights on my bike because I don't ride it at night.
Something that bugs me about bike lights is those new fancy flashing ones, whats the point? they're off over half the time.
-
A flashing light is more noticeable than a light that doesn't flash.
-
A flashing light is more noticeable than a light that doesn't flash.
When its off so much?
-
We saw a few with the flashing lights but they had nothing on the front so a car pulling out of a side road would have no idea there was a bike there !
Its up tot he bike rider if they wear a helmet its their life but by not having lights on they are endangering many others on the road/pavement. THINK CAR !
-
Think it would be pretty upsetting if you did knock them off because they had no lights. Then find out they werent wearing a helmet not a pretty site. I think helmets should be as important as lights.
-
I think helmets should be as important as lights.
I'm guilty of not wearing a helmet, I don't know why I don't, (maybe I've seen it as "uncool") but I will be going out to buy one before I get back on my bike.
-
It's not just cyclists.
Pedestrians need to think about wearing something light to make them visible. I have good eyesight and drive carefully (defensive rather than wimpy) but have had several near misses on dark winter mornings with pedestrians in dark clothes
Oops, I was guilty of this last year. Started work at a new place and have to walk up a remote road by Epping forest to get to the bus stop - no street lights, just me and a little torch (I walked in the hedge, not the road) but a couple of cars tooted me (thought my luck had changed) and my husband said it's because drivers can't see red very well in the dark (my coat colour) so I bought a brighter torch - which I shine on the floor not at the cars! and I got some reflective arm bands with little red flashing lights built in. I'm a regular walking light display when the clocks change.
-
I ride a bike and always have lights on in the dark - they clip on and off easily - Cyclist who ride without lights cant maon if they get damaged.
What really annoys me is the constant moaning about cyclists when every day I see drivers that don't indicate, ride me into the pavement, pull out without looking, have only one headlight working or no brake lights, produce a cloud of smoke and fumes to rival bonfire night, do indicate and dont turn, open their bloody doors without looking...
I could go on. Why all the maoning about cyclists - cars kill thousands of people a year - bikes not so many - get it in perspective.
-
What really annoys me is the constant moaning about cyclists when every day I see drivers that don't indicate, ride me into the pavement, pull out without looking, have only one headlight working or no brake lights, produce a cloud of smoke and fumes to rival bonfire night, do indicate and dont turn, open their bloody doors without looking...
But if caught doing any of that they are sorted out by the police ! and any defects on a car are sorted at the MOT but bikes dont even have to be checked over !
And if bike riders thought before they rode down the inside of cars and shot off pavements there would be less accidents !
Another thing that gets me is there are cycle lanes here and do they use them ..........Ummmmmmmm NO !
Having been a bike rider for years and a moped rider who was shunted around a rounderbout by a car on my back i do understand bikes and do allow for them but none of that explains why all new bikes can not have lights fitted !!! if you take them off and dont ride at night fine but if you get caught without them in the dark you get a big fine, simple !
-
I don't suppose there is any gain for the police to stop some of the dangerous antics of the inconsiderate cyclists. It will not enhance their clear up record, I don't suppose it is crime, although minor motoring offences are. But if they can take the time to target motorcyclists (for their own safety) they should do the same for those motorless tread irons.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2009/November/nov2009-police-target-riders-not-wearing-hi-viz/?R=EPI-120315 (http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2009/November/nov2009-police-target-riders-not-wearing-hi-viz/?R=EPI-120315)
We have a school a few streets away and they run a safety scheme for young cyclists, I do not think they can ride into school without their cyclists proficiency pass. It was way back in the dark and distant past, I remember taking the same test at least 50 years ago. My point here is surely every cyclist on the road has taken this test. If not they should not be allowed on the road and their bike conviscated if they are caught in contravenance of the highway code.
There should also be a law against wearing lycra cycling shorts. The men should be banned for being a show offs and the ladies for being a distraction to elderly gentlemen who should know better, especially one in particular who would love to reach out of the window and give that tight little bu.................Ah! well, yes as I was saying............
-
if ALL cyclists had to DRIVE a CAR for 1 week per year, and ALL drivers had to RIDE a CYCLE for 1 week per year, perhaps everyone would be a bit more understanding of the others perspective??
(as someone who rides a 1985 raleigh winner, and drives a 190 LWB transit, I think i have a pretty good idea of both perspectives!! ;))
-
ACE - Totally agree about the lycra. Grown men should not wear lycra or if they do they should cover themselves in a nice sensible pair of shorts.
I drive a car and I ride a bike. As a driver I have never had a problem with cyclists but as a cyclist I have lost count of the number of times I have been squeezed off the roads, smashed in to doors that are flung open, suddenly found a car pulling out in front of me etc. I have a good perspective on both and in general it seems that cars cause far more problems that bikes.
@flowerofshona2007 - where I am I supposed to ride my bike. My journey to work on my bike is solid with traffic all the way - if I ride on the inside then I find the traffic right on the curb so I go round the far side only to find myself squeezed out into oncoming traffic. If cars just gave a little more concideration then I could quite happily ride on the inside which is perfectly legal and sanctioned by rule 151 of the highway code . Also I have never seen any car stopped for failure to indicate or driver arrested for opening car doors in traffic. The old bill seems less than interested in dealing with errant drivers - the idea that all these drivers are been caught and dealt with is laughable - In London it seems entirely optional for cars to indicate.
-
Must say car's not indicating is very irritating both as a cyclist and a driver. Some drivers can be very stupid at times. I live on a main road while on the way to collect the kids from nanny's the other day a car was right up my back side and because i refused to break the speed limit of 30 mph on a very busy road he over took me right into on coming traffic :o then continued to drive through a red light. Unbelievable !!!
-
if ALL cyclists had to DRIVE a CAR for 1 week per year, and ALL drivers had to RIDE a CYCLE for 1 week per year, perhaps everyone would be a bit more understanding of the others perspective??
Ok so if i take the lights off my car, ride on the pavement when i feel like it, undertake add lib and wear tight lycra shorts for a week it will solve the problems of bike with no lights ????
Ok bring it on pass me the lycra!!!
In a 5 min journey we saw 23 bikes with no lights now imagine if that was 23 cars ??? And on the subject of indicators i can't remember the last time i saw a hand signal from a cyclist that was not rude !
This was about lights on bikes !!! I have to wear a seat belt in a car and motorcycls have to wear a helmet and they DO get stopped for that but 23 cyclists can break the law and nothing is done about it, i agree with Ace its all about money its much more profitable to catch a speeding car !
Off to find some big Lycra shorts and wiggle my azz at traffic (this may cause a big pile up in Dorset so avoid the area).:lol
-
I noticed the other evening a chap/woman going off on his bicycle in full camouflage gear to a T.A meeting goodness knows how I managed to miss them as it was an unlit road with woods either side, talk about asking for trouble.
-
Flowers - Undertaking is perfectly fine on a push bike - As I asked before - where so you want us to ride?
I actually agree that cyclists should all have lights and they cant moan if they get hurt if they don't but it's up to them if they want to break the law- much as it is for drivers who likewise never seem to get done.
I just don't get this attitude from drivers about cyclists - I see drivers shouting at cyclists all the time for not having lights I see hundreds of minor traffic violations every week but dont feel the need to shout at cars. Also if they can see them to shout at them and you can see them well enough to count them then surely the problem is pretty minimilistic...
-
We don't really have a problem over here, most of them seem to want to go off road. I have read somewhere that the isle of wight is on the wish lists of quite a few 'pleasure cyclists' whatever that means. Pleasure and cycling are a very odd couple ;D. My oldest boy is into competetive cycling and spends quite a bit of cash on the right machine for the job but safety comes first.
I did have disagreement with a sunday cyclist when we were in Devon last year when this lycra clad lout came screaming up to me in a car park saying that had just overtaking him as he was doing some sort of speed trial. I must admit I did overtake a few cyclists that day, but I know I did not put anybody at risk by doing so, I pointed out to him that perhaps public roads were not the best place to pursue his hobby and he got even more abusive. A quick knee in the groin sorted the problem out. I didn't really mind him his hobby, but shouting at me whilst clad in lycra, that really was inviting trouble especially with the target area so well defined. ;)
-
Flowers - you can see them well enough to count them then surely the problem is pretty minimilistic...
about sums it up?
-
No as it was a well lit road !! and its ILLEGAL ! and what happens when they are in a side road that is not well lit or is it ok for me to drive around with no lights on then ???
Im not against people riding bikes and as i said at the start the more the merrier it helps the enviroment BUT why should car drivers have to have night vision glasses to see idiots who dont have lights on their bikes ????? Its your life but dont ruin mine by riding on a public road illegally in dark clothes and be suprised if you get killed !
Get the point ITS ILLEGAL to ride a bike on the pubic highway without lights on front and back ! And congrats to parents who allow their childern to do this you must be so proud !
-
I'd just like to speak up for cyclists, having been one for longer than I've been a driver and thats 30+ years.
1. Cars having lights/ bicycles not - Does speed/stopping (thinking) distance not come into this, whats the maxi speed/stopping distance of a bike ?
Whats the stopping (thinking) distance on a motorway ?
If cars actually obeyed the speed limits in built up areas, they would have time to see cyclists, lit or not. But that is still no excuse for not having bike lights. As the majority of children that ride bikes, do so to/.from school, is it not part of the schools responsibility ? or in these days of fear of litigation, is it anything to do with them ?
The police do stop cycles without lights, but as the majority are children, what can they do. The under 20's do appear to have a seance of immunity against all forms of danger - that one reason why the young get sent off to war.
2. Brightly coloured clothing. Anyone been to the shops recently. The only colours you can get a coat in are black and dark navy. I was told "its the fashion, its what people want". Bull.
3. Undertaking etc. When I worked in London, I used to cycle in from Surrey to Blackfriers everyday, some 20 miles. A good percentage was down the centre of the road as that was the safest area. Cars will happily scrape along the kerb/ parked cars, but are much more frightened of on coming traffic and so leave a bigger gap in the middle . Also, you dont get hit by cars shooting outof sideroads, and vehicles that turn right are much more likely to check their mirrors and indicate that those turning left.
These days I will only use the car after dark, I refuse to cycle, other road users are far too dangerous. The number of times I've had accidents and near accidents when cycling. Ligths or no lights, it makes little difference. Cycling down a busy high street, other road users are far more interested in getting home to see Ann Robinson, that to check for cyclists. They'd much rather knock a cyclist off than move over, possibly into another lane where there is danger of hitting another car. After all hitting a bike causes less damage.
-
"Its your life but dont ruin mine by riding on a public road illegally in dark clothes and be suprised if you get killed !"
If I get killed (I wasnt personalising this but you seem to be...) then I dont think I ll be surprised - Ill be dead.
How will me riding with no lights (which I have stated I do not do) in dark clothes ruin your life?
Persoanally I dont give a stuff about the legalities. I use lights cos its sensible esp with the idiot drivers I have to contend with on a daily basis but as Peaky Rabbit has said it makes no difference to my chances of survival. I do it mainly to stop all the drivers who are all too busy counting cyclists or shouting at them to realise that it's their driving and lack of awarenes that causes the problems.
-
How will me riding with no lights (which I have stated I do not do) in dark clothes ruin your life?
It will ruin anyones life that has to live with the memorys of an accident that could be prevented.
There are bad car drives and bad cyclists but the point is i pass a test to drive on the road, i have insurance, my car is MOT'd every year and i pay tax to be on the road.
Bike have no identification they can be un road worthy and the cyclist can have no idea about the rules of the road but off they go !
I am an advanced driver and would like to see all drives taking the course but all cyclists should take a cycling test and all bikes should have identification on them as they do in Holland and boy do they have some rules over there !!!
Surely its in everyones interst on the roads to be safe and seen, whats the problem with that ????????????
-
We are never going to agree Flowers!
I think you have it completely absolutely wrong about Holland. They may love a rule but they have some of the maddest cyclists going over there and there is no compulsory ID scheme for bikes.
Have a look here at what goes in Holland on bikes. http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/ (http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/) They also have a city designed around the bike (it is small) and have more bikes than people.
Bad drivers kill people. Actually quite a lot of people (3K plus each year) and cycling deaths are increasing. It's quite right that we all should be tested and have our cars tested so that we kill as few people as possible. All that testing doesnt stop people driving like idiots.
Bad cyclists mainly hurt themselves ( I can attest to that - to my shame and pain) but every now and then they do hurt someone else but really not so much. I think your proposals will put people off cycling which is maybe the aim and as a consequence will do more harm than good. I can think of no good reason why I should register my bike apart from theft.
-
Ok im not getting this ???
So rather than being safe on the roads its far better to ignore common sence and the law ?
Far from wanting to put people off riding bikes as i have said many times im all for more bikes on the roads !!!! but why should one group of road/pavement users flaunt the laws and eveyone else have to follow them ?
Having ridden in holland and loved it having family over there i spent quite a bit of time over there and their cycle lanes are wonderful !!! (but dont try riding the wrong way :P ).
All im asking for is that new bikes have lights fitted to them, if you take them off thats upto you but don't moan if you get fined.
One less accident on the roads is a good thing.
-
OK OK!
I agree that bikes should have lights and yours is a good idea!
My point is that cars cause much more damage than bicycles - so if we can civilise the idiot drivers then we can all agree, have a drink and cycle home!!!
Right Im off to get on my bike and play with the traffic - I used to be a dispatch rider - Can u tell!??
-
have a drink and cycle home!!!
Hate to say when i lived in Eire i used to cycle 15 miles to the 'local' night club which was up a huge hill, was ok coming home, feet on handle bars and weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee all the way home sure sobbered me up ;D that was 30 years ago!
-
Used to cycle home from South of the River to North London after a few dinkies on a friday night. It was OK as long as we kept going but as soon as we stopped gravity took over. Toe clips and alcohol comined with gravity do not make a good match!
Those days are long behind me too!
-
have a drink and cycle home!!!
Hate to say when i lived in Eire i used to cycle 15 miles to the 'local' night club which was up a huge hill, was ok coming home, feet on handle bars and weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee all the way home sure sobbered me up ;D that was 30 years ago!
Well I hope you had your lights on. ::)
-
Went to Oxford recently for a concert and the bikes were whirling round all over the place. Nightmare. They ride past on the inside when you are clearly indicating to turn left. Whatever it is that the students are reading it is certainly not the highway code.
Lights on bikes- haven't seen many of those for years. I like cyclists with lots of reflector strips on their clothes and flashing lights. I have something a bit like some of the christmas decorations on peoples houses in mind.
Can you be drunk in charge of a bicycle?
-
Can you be drunk in charge of a bicycle?
Yes.
And you can be charged for it too. However, if I remember correctly, you are not obliged to take a breath test if you are on a bicycle.
-
Also I reckon ALL pedestrians should have to pass an annual test of competence before they are allowed to cross roads or step off the pavement. AND they should carry lights.
How many years ago did people pass their driving tests, and do they think they would pass today ?
I also have lived in north London - Elstree. Used to cycle down the length of Edgware Road to Marble Arch (now there's a place to cycle around). Only occasionally would I pause in Kilburn some times at The thingy, sometimes at The Crown.
-
[Can you be drunk in charge of a bicycle?]
Yes.
And you can be charged for it too. However, if I remember correctly, you are not obliged to take a breath test if you are on a bicycle.
yes its called drunk in charge of a carrage
-
I believe that cyclists should have to pass a test before being allowed on the highway. Pedestrians particularly joggers on the highway should be lit at night.
But I also believe that drivers should have to pass tests every 10 years. Cars have an annual MOT drivers need one at the same time. Reaction times, eye sight etc.
-
yes its called drunk in charge of a carrage
If stopped by the police and asked to take a breath test, do you have to comply?
-
certainly not!! you will instead be arrested, and taken to the nearest open police station, where you will again be asked to provide a specimen. ;)
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimedrinkdriving.htm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GugsCdLHm-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GugsCdLHm-Q)
-
certainly not!! you will instead be arrested, and taken to the nearest open police station, where you will again be asked to provide a specimen. ;)
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimedrinkdriving.htm
But bicycles don't have motors.
Any person who is driving, attempting to drive, or in charge of a motor vehicle on the road, or in a public place (eg a pub car park or a garage forecourt)
-
Copy pasted this from a cycling website so I don't know if it's 100% accurate :)
In law a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway but cyclists are not in charge of 'mechanically propelled' vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same 'drink drive' rules as motorists.
Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs - that is to say - is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle.
'Road' in the above bit of legislation includes a bridleway so don't think you can get blotto at a country pub and ride home 'off road' without risk.
-
So it seems that my original assumptions remain unchallenged - you CAN be done for riding a bike while intoxicated but, paradoxically, you aren't obliged to take a breath test.
-
Probably have to walk in a straight line and recite a tongue twister :-\ :-\ :-\
-
So it seems that my original assumptions remain unchallenged - you CAN be done for riding a bike while intoxicated but, paradoxically, you aren't obliged to take a breath test.
you are not obliged to give a breath test if you drunk in charge of any vehicle! but you'll be charged with failing to do so?
-
The reason why the police dont enforce the lack of lights is one of enforcement. Its not easy trying to catch a yob on a bike as they streak off over pavements and down alleyways. Also if they catch them what will be the time involved in filling in forms etc and when it gets to court what will be the outcome? Hardly worth the bother as a deterrent.
I am not defending those breaking the law, far from it but just trying to be realistic. We have a limited number of police and in terms of priority I would rather see them chasing drunken drivers and uninsured drivers who threaten my health and safety rather than invisible cyclists who at worst are a nuisance.
While cyclists can kill it is so rare that they make national news when they do. If they are stupid enough not be lit up they are putting their own lives and health at risk and will have no comeback if hit. Car drivers meanwhile drive around in over a ton of metal and if they had no lights the consequences would be much more severe so i cannot see how you can compare.
I am a car driver but driving is boring. I used to ride a bike and would still do if I could find a way of strapping a large dog to the back of a mountain bike - it was dog ownership that led to me stopping. You cannot beat the thrill of belting down a forest track at over 45mph and taking off.
I always rode with lights front and rear. The flashing red light is best for visibility at the back and i used halogen bulbs.
Very few people are killed by cyclists carelessness or stupidity but many people are killed by motorists carelessness. Most cyclists deaths are due to the fault of the motorists and I think you have to keep things in perspective.
As a motorist you have to drive defensively but as a cyclist it is absolutely essential. I cannot ride to my allotment even though it is only 3 miles away. It is because I would have to ride down a stretch of trunk road that is derestricted , goes down a hill and round a bend and it is then narrow. Imagine if two trucks came towards each other and you were in front of one. Too many trucks to take the chance.
-
I nearly killed one this afternoon. He roded straight across a red light and straight across my path. Just missed him, but only just. Got a rude sign when I hooted.