highway code changes

[philw696]

Disappointed that Benny hasn't contributed yet

 

[GeoffCapes]

Mark, I assume you cycle with consideration for all road users. In which case you'll doubtless agree that doing 30 in a limit is fine, 25 would likely be better. Doing 30 two abreast in a 60 is stupid. Riding slowly uphill in a pretend Tou-de-France peleton* is stupid. Undertaking is stupid.

*a tightly packed herd of cyclists, not the fitness company

I try to.

This is the thing, Last year I rode 3,500 miles on my bike, and not once did I see cyclists on a 60mph road, let alone being 2 abreast.
Most cyclists ride on quiet roads to avoid traffic ( I certainly do as much as possible).

Due to the size of me however, I am one of the slowest people in the world going up hill, so I will hold up the traffic. But that would only be on a country road.

 

[Gazcw]

The answer to this is so much easier than the rules which have been introduced.

We do like a number of countries in Europe have.

If there is a collision between a cyclist and a vehicle, the onus is on the driver of the vehicle to prove their innocence. If they can't it's their fault. Simple as that.

This may seen harsh, but what it does do is make motorists more vigilant of their surroundings.
What it also does is punish the dick head cyclists who cut drivers up and weave in and out of cars in traffic (much like motorbikes) and are generally a pain in the ar5e who don't abide by the rules.
If they get hit by a car riding like a dick. It's their fault. Problem solved.

I'm not going to defend all cyclists as there are some complete bell ends out there on a bike, but lets be fair there are far more bell ends driving cars, van, lorries, buses etc on our roads.

How exactly does it punish cyclists when you just said it is down to the driver to prove their innocence? A complete turnaround of the justice system I might add.

 

[GeoffCapes]

How exactly does it punish cyclists when you just said it is down to the driver to prove their innocence? A complete turnaround of the justice system I might add.

At present a driver can squash and kill a cyclist and just blame the cyclist for cutting them up, whether that's the case or not.

If the onus was on the driver, you would automatically be more careful and considerate to the cyclist. 'Just in case'.

If it's clear case of the cyclist being a knob, then he/she gets what they deserve because the motorist has done all they can to avoid squashing the cyclist.

At present the most vulnerable road user has zero protection, which is what these new laws are supposed to address.

 

[gb-gta]

So looking at number 3 and number 5 it appears that a cyclist can now, however retarded it may be, come tearing up the inside from a long way back, verstappen style, of a car slowing down indicating left approaching a left turn and if the car hits them it’s the drivers fault.

However, as a car driver has to give 5ft clearance overtaking a cyclist can a cyclist undertake a slowing car without an equivalent 5ft gap on the inside? Or are they allowed to undertake, approaching a junction, with a 6in gap?
If they want to overtake a car it should be on the outside, with a 5ft gap, for consistency.

 

[Ianed0]

I sit between being a life long club and racing cyclist, since the age of 15 now 58 and massive car enthusiast and wonder what planet the people who come up with these rules are on, it won't work and in fact probably result in more deaths and injuries, as a cyclist you always need to be aware of everything around you and don't assume the motorist will give you the right of way. I'm all for cycling as you would expect but unfortunately the last couple of years have spawned a big element of people taking to cycling with either little or no experience of riding on a road that on top of this spells disaster

 

[LDM 3200]

In truth im not convinced this will change the attitude or actions of drivers or cyclist much, personally I usually assume everyone I may encounter on the road (and other places) is a moron and someone to be wary of. I guess it may make some cyclist feel even more superior than they already do whether they ride correctly or not.

It doesnt matter how much you were in the right if you are dead.

 

[Gazcw]

At present a driver can squash and kill a cyclist and just blame the cyclist for cutting them up, whether that's the case or not.

If the onus was on the driver, you would automatically be more careful and considerate to the cyclist. 'Just in case'.

If it's clear case of the cyclist being a knob, then he/she gets what they deserve because the motorist has done all they can to avoid squashing the cyclist.

At present the most vulnerable road user has zero protection, which is what these new laws are supposed to address.

Not sure that first point is entirely correct in this day an age of dashcams etc. and what you are saying is if a driver hits or kills a cyclists now, they clearly were not being careful or considerate enough no matter what the circumstances are.

How often has a cyclists with a camera ever reported another to the police for being a knob? I can guess it is virtually zero and what did the police do? Fck all because how would they identify them!

If cyclists/scooter users want the protection of laws and rights to use roads as anyone else the they should abide by the rules, have lights on permanently, wear hi viz, have a registration number and be responsible the same way drivers are supposed to be.

Ps. I have nothing against cyclists, but yet again it is down to a driver to know what some suicide rider is planning to do and where they are going so there is not an accident and ensuring you are not being done for due care when you cannot prove otherwise at all times. Unfortunately I do not have a handfree crystal ball.

 

[Gazcw]

I sit between being a life long club and racing cyclist, since the age of 15 now 58 and massive car enthusiast and wonder what planet the people who come up with these rules are on, it won't work and in fact probably result in more deaths and injuries, as a cyclist you always need to be aware of everything around you and don't assume the motorist will give you the right of way. I'm all for cycling as you would expect but unfortunately the last couple of years have spawned a big element of people taking to cycling with either little or no experience of riding on a road that on top of this spells disaster

Totally agree. The same protection you should take as a pedestrian or a driver also. Assumption is the mother of all fckups.

I would always regulate my speed and distance if there was a cycle and I was turning left. But now I have to monitor the cycle on the left, any pedestrians who step out because it is their right of way, oncoming vehicles and the kamikaze pilot who decides to come out of a blind spot on the right or left depending on turn and cut across me.

Fck me I am talented, but only have 2 eyes that travel in the same direction not 360 vision!

 

[GeoffCapes]

Not sure that first point is entirely correct in this day an age of dashcams etc. and what you are saying is if a driver hits or kills a cyclists now, they clearly were not being careful or considerate enough no matter what the circumstances are.

How often has a cyclists with a camera ever reported another to the police for being a knob? I can guess it is virtually zero and what did the police do? Fck all because how would they identify them!

If cyclists/scooter users want the protection of laws and rights to use roads as anyone else the they should abide by the rules, have lights on permanently, wear hi viz, have a registration number and be responsible the same way drivers are supposed to be.

Ps. I have nothing against cyclists, but yet again it is down to a driver to know what some suicide rider is planning to do and where they are going so there is not an accident and ensuring you are not being done for due care when you cannot prove otherwise at all times. Unfortunately I do not have a handfree crystal ball.

The idea of this new law is to provide protection for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

Which it doesn't really do.

If you put the onus on the vehicle driver, (like in numerous European countries) then it makes the motorist think about what they are doing a bit more.

Some drivers are more interested in not losing 20 seconds waiting to safely pass a cyclist and would rather pass them dangerously. (this is something that happen EVERY time I ride my bike).

If it's worked in the likes of France, Belgium and Holland for the last few decades, you'd think it would be a good idea to copy them would you not?

 

[UlstermanAbroad]

I will never forget the words of a Chief Superintendent or Assistant Chief Constable, who was in charge of one of the northern rural traffic divisions. He described how he drove when off duty, as assuming every other driver was a homicidal maniac intent on killing him. This was thirty odd years ago. I think its as relevant now, as it ever was.
In modern times, its called defensive driving and is a good skill to develop.

 

[UlstermanAbroad]

The idea of this new law is to provide protection for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

Which it doesn't really do.

If you put the onus on the vehicle driver, (like in numerous European countries) then it makes the motorist think about what they are doing a bit more.

Some drivers are more interested in not losing 20 seconds waiting to safely pass a cyclist and would rather pass them dangerously. (this is something that happen EVERY time I ride my bike).

If it's worked in the likes of France, Belgium and Holland for the last few decades, you'd think it would be a good idea to copy them would you not?

Precisely. We don't have blue lights on our vehicles. Exceptionally rare, are the journeys that are genuinely time sensitive. So what if we're five minutes late, on the school run. Leave a bit early and chill if you're late. Call ahead. When stationary, of course!

 

[Ianed0]

In truth although cycling in this country has taken off massively in the last 5 or 6 years we are still way behind Europe when it comes to attitudes of both motorists and cyclists

 

[Harry]

I was really shocked by number 5 having to be introduced at all. If you’re turning right or left in a car, you check your mirrors for bikes/motorbikes before you turn. Maybe that explains why I’ve seen so many idiot drivers cutting in front of cyclists to then stop them in their tracks by turning left/right.

 

[Felonious Crud]

I will never forget the words of a Chief Superintendent or Assistant Chief Constable, who was in charge of one of the northern rural traffic divisions. He described how he drove when off duty, as assuming every other driver was a homicidal maniac intent on killing him. This was thirty odd years ago. I think its as relevant now, as it ever was.
In modern times, its called defensive driving and is a good skill to develop.

Two things I remember clearly from taking my motorbike test and subsequent advanced riding lessons:

1. Everyone is trying to kill you. Ride accordingly
2. What the **** use is it to be in the right if you're lying in the road with a broken leg.

Cyclists should adopt the same mindset.

 

[Scaf]

I would agree that enshrining this is law is madness, especially the undertaking point.
I think cyclists (and I am one) need to consider buying bikes more suited to our potholed roads and that would be much safer.
Eg: I took my sons high spec “road bike” out for a ride and nearly killed myself, every imperfection, man hole and drain cover was a potential killer. Yet I can ride my mountain bike perfectly safely over and around the very same obstacles. Riding in the gutter felt a lot safer than the middle of the road.

 

[zagatoes30]

I'm all for giving cyclists as much space as possible and I try to treat them with respect, I sometimes feel that not all cyclists have the same respect for other road users - not just motorists. Relights, one way streets, footpaths etc. some cyclists think any rules related to these don't apply to them.

When I ride on the road I do my utmost to keep out of the way of all motorists because I know they can kill me

It just needs consideration from all parties good and bad drivers / cyclists spoil it for everyone.

 

[GeoffCapes]

Here’s an interesting take on it.

Entitled motorists have ruled the roads for far too long

Last week it was ‘operation red meat’, designed to recapture wavering Tory voters. This week something very different: changes to the Highway Code are coming into effect, which threaten to upset the not-insignificant number of car owners. Sure enough, the Alliance of British Drivers, the trade...

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[Scaf]

Cyclists don’t have it all their own way though, they have to give way to pedestrians, I love this rule as very few cycle lanes prohibit pedestrians !!

“Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on Bridleways”

 

[sionie1]

The idea of this new law is to provide protection for cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

Which it doesn't really do.

If you put the onus on the vehicle driver, (like in numerous European countries) then it makes the motorist think about what they are doing a bit more.

Some drivers are more interested in not losing 20 seconds waiting to safely pass a cyclist and would rather pass them dangerously. (this is something that happen EVERY time I ride my bike).

If it's worked in the likes of France, Belgium and Holland for the last few decades, you'd think it would be a good idea to copy them would you not?

The 'car at fault' is just one part of what the French have done though. French riders for example have to abide by a set criteria - no earphones allowed for example, they have to use cycle lanes where available, they have to have a bike in good order with working lights, brakes and reflectors, high vis jacket/clothing. Failure to adhere to these rules apparently results in a set fine.
It's an interesting point regarding the car at fault, yes you'd think that the car driver would be more cautious, I'm not sure I for example, could be any more aware driving in London with the bandits on bikes doing what they want with little or no consequence. My observation and experience of the London area is that it's certainly a high percentage of riders who pay lip service to the rules of the roads, particularly around traffic lights, but I don't drive there every day, so perhaps this view is skewed. I actually don't drive there now for the simply reason it's like the wild west. I do however cycle in an urban/rural area and find that even here some of the cycling fraternity seem to write their own Highway Code.
In the 70's not everyone had a skin full and drove, yet it was identified as something that should be addressed, and so it was with laws and campaigns and the police doing targeted stops and checks and the general public being encouraged to report drunk drivers. If the cyclists want to share the road then surely they need to weed out the bad riders who are tainting their mode of transport along with the police doing their bit at set locations to help educate and issue some fines. And/Or make every cyclist have valid insurance the likes of which can be had via a British cycling membership ( although I have to smile at the Insurance page on their site as it has a rider with no helmet, which doesn't send the best of messages).