[quiff]

Thanks. We’re not demanding

Thanks. We’re not demanding users and the communication is all from internet to a limited number of devices and back again – it’s literally just about getting more than one bar of wifi signal in my home office…

I guess one argument for buying something capable of faster speeds is future-proofing in case I increase the line speed at any point, but that way madness lies… 

Of course the first thing I should probably do is buy a massive ethernet cable and see if simply relocating my ISP’s router more centrally in the house improves things.

[quiff]

I’m not a member, but this

I’m not a member, but this CUK guide (from when Slater & Gordon provided the support) mirrors the OP’s experience – basically it anticipates that if you have only suffered property damage, you will be directed to bring a small claim yourself. The reason for that presumably is that (unlike for a personal injury claim) the solicitors can’t recover their costs for a small claim, so it wouldn’t be “no win, no fee” for them, it would just be “no fee”. 

[quiff]

Oh, are they selling

Oh, are they selling something?!

[quiff]

I could be wrong, but I think
I could be wrong, but I think as David says that the no win no fee deals are for personal injury claims. I doubt anyone will do it on a property damage only claim, and you can’t recover your legal costs from the other party in a small claim. However, worth talking to one of those firms to check

[quiff]

Takedown coming in 3,2,1…

Takedown coming in 3,2,1…

[quiff]

Aha! Knightsbridge you say.

Aha! Knightsbridge you say. Well in that case, I’ll see your comment on the home page ticker, click through, take a little hop onto “newest first”, hit reply (without quote) and there you have it – Mornington Crescent!

[quiff]

This ‘thread’ is like a game

This ‘thread’ is like a game of Mornington Crescent; I am beginning to suspect that in fact nobody knows the rules or what they’re replying to anymore.  

[quiff]

If you’d bother to read my

If you’d bother to read my posts properly, I’ve already said I actually agree with you. But what you’re failing to acknowledge is that the Highway Code actually says it’s considerate. You posed a question and purported to be interested in others’ views, but are clearly not actually here for a good faith discussion. Bye.      

[quiff]

You seem to be ignoring that

You seem to be ignoring that the Highway Code says it’s both legal and considerate, because it contradicts your view.

[quiff]

Yes, beginning to think so.

Yes, beginning to think so.

[quiff]

AndyIT wrote:

‘but I’m sure there are plenty of cyclists who think that singling out is actually the more considerate option to following drivers’ as i have explained that would be incorrect and unlikely an option to be chosen as being considerate, asuming they drive as well cycle..  it’s legal but not considerate. 

I sense very stroingly some cyclists can’t be bothered to be considerate; some are though. It’s a choice. 

I don’t know if you are wilfully misunderstanding my (admittedly somewhat devil’s advocate) point, so I’ll try once more before giving up. You may think that 15 cyclists riding single file is inconsiderate and that anyone would be incorrect to think otherwise. But that view is at odds with what the Highway Code actually says – it suggests that to be considerate (it actually uses that word) when riding in groups, you should single out to allow drivers to overtake when safe.

Now for what it’s worth, I actually agree with you that 15 riders in single file is sub-optimal and that the HWC wording is ,although now better, still problematic on this issue. I am simply pointing out that what you received as unthinking or deliberately obstructive behaviour could in fact have been intended as precisely the opposite – it could have been a conscious choice to do what the HWC says (rightly or wrongly) is considerate.      

[quiff]

Does that just mean you now

Does that mean you now just wonder where you’ve left the orange one instead?!

[quiff]

Yes, you say riding single

Yes, you say riding single file is inconsiderate; but I’m pointing out that Rule 66 specifically suggests the opposite, and that far from being selfish, they may actually have thought they were doing the considerate thing:  

You should… be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so 

Now obviously you were going to wait until you could cross the centre line to overtake, which I applaud, and in that case doubling up would arguably be more helpful – but I’m sure there are plenty of cyclists who think that singling out is actually the more considerate option to following drivers.   

[quiff]

Both seem inferior to

Both seem inferior to scenario 3 to me – ride two abreast, thus maintaining both the group size the cyclists want and the group length to give drivers opportunity to overtake. 

However, while I wouldn’t say riding 15 in single file is good roadcraft, have you considered that, while you thought this was selfish, perhaps they genuinely thought they were being considerate following the letter of the Highway Code:

“Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so”    

[quiff]

Most threads I’ve started in

Most threads I’ve started in the forum start with “I’m sure there’s already a thread on this but…”

[Author]

Replies