New Highway Code rules.

[trevskoda]

Cyclists do pay their way!

Not nearly enough is spent on cycle lanes. One of the best ways this country is going to cut emissions from cars making short local journeys is to provide convenient and safe cycle lanes. We can't afford not to do this. Electric cars are not the answer; the carbon footprint to manufacture a car is way, way more than to make a bike. Plus the fact that cars take up so much more room on the roads and kill far more pedestrians. Cycle lanes are a no-brainer!

It wont happen, bikes are a child toy here, cannot imagine mum dropping of 3 kids at schools on a bike in pi--ing rain, or farmer joe taking a few sheep to fields on one, never mind the biz men in belfast going to meetings or taking folk out to biz dinners on a cycle.

 

[barryd]

The angry cyclist.

The angry motorist (Sweary) watch to end

The moral of the story. No need for more laws, just don't be a twat. end of.

 

[Andrew and Rita]

I don't fully understand the new rules but it looks like cyclists and pedestrians will be given priority in certain situations (such as cyclists undertaking near corners and pedestrians crossing the road).

I'm willing to be stood corrected, but it seems at first glance an ideal opportunity for a certain element of society to be looking at making a lot of money out of motorists insurance policies.

I posted this on facts a few days ago

Actually this is clickbait from the mirror, cyclists were always advised to take up a prominent position in the road, for example when turning into a junction, and pedestrians always had right of way from cars turning into a junction if they were already crossing, that's what the single broken white line means, proceed when safe to do so. The problem that I find astounding, actually no, having held a driving license for 40 years now is how little common sense or courtesy is displayed by some drivers. Let's read the mirror in reverse, did drivers have the right or protection to cut down mum and baby for the temerity of being on their road!
I honestly expect a forum for users of large vehicles to be more understanding of the rules of the road and be exemplars to the rest of the lawfully entitled users of the Queens highway, pedestrians, or human beings, horses, HGV drivers and cyclists'. But that wouldn't sell newspapers would it.

 

[alcam]

The angry cyclist.

The angry motorist (Sweary) watch to end

The moral of the story. No need for more laws, just don't be a twat. end of.

Cyclists in London are a whole different story . Travel in packs , incredibly aggressive

 

[colinm]

That's ridiculous. These new rules are rightly to encourage and protect people choosing to travel actively. I agree that we should be training people to cycle safely, ideally as children, but if children had to pass a test, have a licence, be insured, taxed and MOTed is not at all reasonable.

Children can do a course before riding a cycle on the road.

Bikeability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pedalman]

I can only speak for myself and close cycling freinds. Yes, we do sometimes ride on the pavement when it would be suicide to ride on the road. But we do this with great care and slowdown/dismount when we come up to pedestrians. We are technically breaking the law, but it is safer for us than the alternative of riding on dangerous roads. If proper cycle lanes were provided, then we would not be forced to do this.

Cyclists are closer in weight and vulnerability to pedestrians than they are to cars vans and lorries

 

[Pudsey Bear]

Maybe we should just ban cyclists and pedestrians from the roads altogether.

No mention of those in wheelchairs or mobility scooters.

 

[GeoffL]

That's ridiculous. These new rules are rightly to encourage and protect people choosing to travel actively. I agree that we should be training people to cycle safely, ideally as children, but if children had to pass a test, have a licence, be insured, taxed and MOTed is not at all reasonable.

The thing is that (with two exceptions) there are no new rules -- only changes in guidance. The first exception is that they've removed the loophole that allowed people to use mobile phones handheld for purposes other than interactive communication; otherwise, the law remains unchanged. (The second is a consultation under way to ban pavement parking -- so that those who live in narrow streets would no longer be allowed to park there -- however, this is still just guidance ATM).

As mentioned upthread, pedestrians crossing the mouth of a junction (i.e. following the major road) always have had priority -- at least, since when I passed my test almost half a century ago. Cautious pedestrians didn't push the issue and so motorists have come to assume they had right of way. Cyclists were always free to ride in the middle of the lane and ride up to two abreast. Courteous cyclists take the secondary position when it's safe to be overtaken to permit motorists to do that and those riding defensively hold primary position when it is not or when they need to position themselves for better visibility (both to see and be seen).

However, one thing that concerns me is that the new rules will encourage latter-day, militant, evangelistic vigilantes who, equipped with cameras, deliberately put themselves in harms way just to prove a point. There's plenty to be seen on YouTube etc. -- and it's by no means confined to cyclists as there are examples of both cyclists and motorists who seem intent on proving everyone but them is a law-breaking idiot; often by pushing their 'right of way' when that's the least-safe option. Thankfully, there are those like Ashley Neal (whose channel is about driver education) who point out where cammers could have easily taken action to mitigate or avoid incidents. Some of his "Driving Fails" analyses are spot on IMO.

 

[Fisherman]

The angry cyclist.

The angry motorist (Sweary) watch to end

The moral of the story. No need for more laws, just don't be a twat. end of.

Exactly Barry

 

[colinm]

As mentioned upthread, pedestrians crossing the mouth of a junction (i.e. following the major road) always have had priority -- at least, since when I passed my test almost half a century ago.

Some time back I was watching a TV program which followed the investigation of a fatal injury at a junction. All the eye witnesses said the pedestrian had walked out right in front of van and the police where going to drop it when they noticed a chip shop had CCTV, on reviewing the footage they saw the pedestrian had started to cross road and been held up by another car, the van then turned into the junction and hit them, police then prosecuted.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

Wankr, improper use of a horn at least.

 

[trevskoda]

When i was in germany the rules were as so, folk and bikes on cycle lane cars etc on the road, if you crossed the road other than a designated place and got hit, tuff titty.

 

[st3v3]

Cyclists are closer in weight and vulnerability to pedestrians than they are to cars vans and lorries

I don't understand your point sorry.

Are you saying he shouldn't slow down/dismount for pedestrians whilst illegally riding on the pavement?

 

[barryd]

Exactly Barry

Both are extreme examples but I think it shows that you need to take your angry head off as soon as you get either behind the wheel or on your pushbike, scooter or whatever. Maybe thats the problem. Too much aggression. If someone bumps into you in the street or walks across our path do we go into an immediate Rage and start swearing at them or worse? No generally we dont but once we are on wheels of any description everyone is a total wanker and God help them if they cut you up or get in our way!

I used to get angry myself, mainly if people got in my way on the M1 when I was doing 40000 miles a year, most of it in hyper drive but I cant be arsed with all that now. Lifes too short. Just accept people are going to make mistakes and cock up now and again whatever they are driving or riding.

 

[alcam]

Both are extreme examples but I think it shows that you need to take your angry head off as soon as you get either behind the wheel or on your pushbike, scooter or whatever. Maybe thats the problem. Too much aggression. If someone bumps into you in the street or walks across our path do we go into an immediate Rage and start swearing at them or worse? No generally we dont

Of course we bleedin do . Muppet !

 

[TeamRienza]

Each time I revisit this thread (several times daily) I am struck by the parallels with motorhoming.

There are those that want the vehicles banned completely wether bikes or Motorhomes and height barriers, no overnight signs etc.

There re those that want the vehicles heavily regulated wether bikes by registration etc or Motorhomes being forced towards campsites.

There are those, a minority thankfully, who give both vehicles a bad name and image, and, thankfully,

Those of us who use a bit of care, consideration and common sense to coexist with other citizens who have the same rights and responsibilities as we have.

Davy

 

[Wully]

I think we should go back to the old points system.

 

[clewless]

Where?

For instance, A 6097 between Lowdham & Gunthorpe. A very busy and narrow road with no alternative if you need to cross the River Trent at this point. Most of the path runs alongside fields with very few houses at the side of the path. I have never come across a pedestrian. (Or seen one when I'm driving.) Most cyclists use this path because the alternative is just too dangerous.

 

[clewless]

Point taken.

However, our local town spent (I think) £8m on cycle lanes, but many ignore them.

It is a sad fact that many of the so called cycle lanes are just not fit for purpose. My local council has painted white lines all over some of the roads and paths. Hopefully it didn't cost £8 million, but no one takes any notice of them because they are difficult to maneuver on a bike & take about 4 times as long as the adjacent road.

Cycle lanes have to be convenient, safe and don't unnecessarily extend the journey time.

If a parent hesitates take the children to school on their bikes, because they believe the cycle lane is too disjointed/dangerous, then understandably, the kids will get strapped into the back of the car to make what usually is a very short journey. If there not safe for kids, then there not safe for any cyclist!

 

[colinm]

Rob may recognise this road, on both sides you can see the lines which are for the cycle lane, and this is a typical scene with cars parked completely blocking it.

https://imgur.com/a/FXT8TB5