New Highway Code rules.

Robmac said:
The point I was trying to make is that certain people are willing to accept minor injuries as a way of making cash, it already happens with vehicles at the moment - this has been proven many times.

It would be fairly easy to pick a slow moving vehicle to step in front of, maybe just allowing the wing to barge you to one side and then exaggerating your injuries.
Click to expand...
The way things are now, I think the days of minor injuries are over. Much less paper work and generally far less hassle all round if you just reverse over them and finish the job. :p
 
mark61 said:
The way things are now, I think the days of minor injuries are over. Much less paper work and generally far less hassle all round if you just reverse over them and finish the job. :p
Click to expand...
That may seem a tad harsh , to some
 
Pudsey Bear said:
Our favourite (NOT) radio personality has spake again.


road.cc

Jeremy Vine: There's a strong argument vehicles should not be allowed to overtake bicycles in cities

"It's pointless to overtake a bike in a city"
road.cc road.cc
Click to expand...
There are times when this is the case.
I am not saying that we should be prevented from overtaking cyclists, but sometimes it’s completely pointless.
You overtake them then they catch up with you at the next set of lights.
What I would say is I don’t like it when they go in front of the cars at the lights forcing us to overtake again. For their own safety they should take their place like the rest of us.
Also I don’t think you should speak for us all, I have enjoyed many of Jeremy vines documentaries in the past, and no doubt in the future.

To quote another poster on here, “Just saying.”
 
Pudsey Bear said:
I posted this on facts a few days ago

Cyclists.JPG
Click to expand...
This is only what good drivers have been doing forever, as for the hierarchy thing, cyclists are now responsible for looking out for pedestrians.
 
Robmac said:
I agree H. I'm actually quite a calm driver these days. I do worry about this 'automatically culpable' thing that is being hinted at though, surely every accident should be judged on evidence.

I have a dash cam, may buy one for the rear of the car now as well though.
Click to expand...
Great that you have a dash cam in your vehicle, I use one too .......but why do some motorists have them in their cars then criticise cyclists for having a helmet cam ?
 
alcam said:
Lots of gripes about cyclists , particularly their attitude towards pedestrians . Think there is a mutual respect in Europe .
Pretty sure old highway code you were meant to give way to pedestrians when turning into a road ?
Click to expand...
In Europe cycling has been a national sport for over 130 years , there are millions who come out to watch bike racing each year, motorists have a respect and an understanding of cycling in mainland Europe.
 
Pudsey Bear said:
"cyclists are now responsible for looking out for pedestrians" not round here they don't.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you there, but not all cyclist.
We have what used to be a railway line the other side of the river.
I run this route regularly, and get angry when cyclist fly past me a 15-20mph.
No warning, and they are only inches away from me when passing.
But as you say not always, some do give a warning and slow down.
 
groyne said:
Hopefully soon cyclists will have to have a licence, pass a test, have an MOT for the bike(if over 3years old), be taxed and fully insured.
Click to expand...
Road tax was abolished in 1937, the "vehicle excise duty" we motorists pay is a tax for owning a motor vehicle, it does not give anyone the right to be on the roads, a bicycle has as much right to be on the road as any motor vehicle. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle so paying the vehicle excise duty is not required. ELECTRIC CARS ARE FREE FROM EXCISE DUTY AND SO ARE VINTAGE VEHICLES OVER 40 YEARS OLD. cyclists are never going to be required to pay it.......also cyclists do not damage the road surface, so we have nothing to pay for.

The myth that won't die https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212379

Passing a cycling test ? why ? most adult cyclists are also motorists ....they HAVE passed a test.......and are more road aware than the many drivers are who choose to ignore what they learned in their driving test anyway ! Speeding (we all do it ) , drink driving, driving without insurance, driving without MOT, illegal tyres, brakes pulling to one side, one headlight out, the list is endless .

Insurance is required by law for motorists because of the damage they cause in a crash to other cars, crash barriers, central reservations, lamp posts and killing people.....cyclists very very very rarely cause accidents ( or road infrastructure damage) pedestrian injuries are normally caused by people stepping out in front of cyclists without looking . It is not worth spending tax payers money on yet another insurance and registration enforcement system.

MOT's for bicycles is not necessary, bikes very very very rarely cause accidents, it is not worth the government spending tax payers money on another testing and enforcement system.
Even if a motor vehicle has 11 months MOT it does not mean the vehicle is road worthy ( it states that on the certificate, or is it on the V5 form ) so none of us should get "holier than thou " on that one.

So none of what you wish for is going to happen to bicycles . Sorry.
 
Pedalman said:
Road tax was abolished in 1937, the "vehicle excise duty" we motorists pay is a tax for owning a motor vehicle, it does not give anyone the right to be on the roads, a bicycle has as much right to be on the road as any motor vehicle. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle so paying the vehicle excise duty is not required. ELECTRIC CARS ARE FREE FROM EXCISE DUTY AND SO ARE VINTAGE VEHICLES OVER 40 YEARS OLD. cyclists are never going to be required to pay it.......also cyclists do not damage the road surface, so we have nothing to pay for.

The myth that won't die https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41212379

Passing a cycling test ? why ? most adult cyclists are also motorists ....they HAVE passed a test.......and are more road aware than the many drivers are who choose to ignore what they learned in their driving test anyway ! Speeding (we all do it ) , drink driving, driving without insurance, driving without MOT, illegal tyres, brakes pulling to one side, one headlight out, the list is endless .

Insurance is required by law for motorists because of the damage they cause in a crash to other cars, crash barriers, central reservations, lamp posts and killing people.....cyclists very very very rarely cause accidents ( or road infrastructure damage) pedestrian injuries are normally caused by people stepping out in front of cyclists without looking . It is not worth spending tax payers money on yet another insurance and registration enforcement system.

MOT's for bicycles is not necessary, bikes very very very rarely cause accidents, it is not worth the government spending tax payers money on another testing and enforcement system.
Even if a motor vehicle has 11 months MOT it does not mean the vehicle is road worthy ( it states that on the certificate, or is it on the V5 form ) so none of us should get "holier than thou " on that one.

So none of what you wish for is going to happen to bicycles . Sorry.
Click to expand...
It’s a shame that you had to make that post, but it seems you had to.
Well put case, but will it change minds, sadly I doubt it.:(
And I have not been on a bike for over 50 years.
 
MaryF said:
I've already noticed that these new changes have brought about more stupid behaviour from cyclists and pedestrians - cyclists and pedestrians using a mobile phone and crossing the road without looking, headphones in and therefore unable to hear approaching traffic, crossing the road without bothering to look - well I walk and I cycle but I sure as hell am not going to argue with a bloody juggernaut!
At sea the rules are that power gives way to sail - again are you going to argue with a tanker under way when you're sailing your dinghy? If you do, you are stupid!
Click to expand...
I have been driving for more years than I care to remember and have witnessed such behaviour from day one. But since the advent of mobile phones and social media I have lost count of the times I have had to stop for a moron crossing a road whilst looking into his or her world in a mobile phone. But I have witnessed no increase in such behaviour, sensible people feared being struck by heavy metal vehicles prior to this legislation, and they will continue to do so after. I doubt if a change in the law will lead to an increase in lemming tendency.
 
I see no reason why cyclists should not have insurance and of course they could easily kill a child, or riding irresponsibly cause a incident, and if they had some form of registration maybe they might stop at traffic lights.

Not all cyclists are responsible some are outright thugs, most are not fortunately but they do exist.
 
Pudsey Bear said:
Some of us just do not like cyclists, maybe if they fessed up it might help but they are usually (not always) very arrogant.
Click to expand...
Why do some motorists not like cyclists, is it a something like why a dog hates cats ? Motorists are usually ( not always ) arrogant, you know, the ones who aim two tons of metal at cyclist trying to shove them into the gutter . Well a lot of them are now getting prosecuted, because to protect themselves, cyclists are now copying motorists and wearing Dash Cams and the drivers are now enjoying points on their licences and higher insurance bills all because of the "dog hates cat" mentality.
 
No and to be frank if you need to ask that then you are out of touch with reality and only see what you want to see, but from your user name I assume you are a cyclist so possibly think all motorists are out to get them which is also unreal.


But you ignored the bit where you would need to do something to be identifiable or pay a few quid for insurance, and I mean all cyclists even children if using the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top