Cyclists and the Highway Code

[Jemima232]

Huh. Just Huh.

And Wow, too.

So now we have to be careful not to knock cyclists over, when driving past them.

Of course, they don't have to be careful not to knock anyone over when they go through red traffic lights, do they?

As if they need more legislation in their favour. It absolutely enrages me.

Oh FFS most cyclists do not disregard the safety of others. We're very conscious of it. You're talking a tiny minority.

The other day I was cycling, and wanted to go straight ahead at a junction. The road I was crossing had priority, therefore I had to wait for both lines of traffic to ease off before I could cross. It was London rush hour, I had to wait 30 seconds max. The tooting I had behind me was stupid (from only one car, admittedly.) I work in the hospital I would have gone too, the food ain't nice. Apologies for wanting to be safe.

And as for the guy that opened a car door as I was passing.....a millisecond later and I'd have been off the bike.

I definitely don't go through red lights, am too scared of traffic coming in a different direction and being in an accident to do that.

I am always pleased to see the police grabbing cyclists who ho through red lights.

Me too, I can't see any justification for it. If a junction is that dangerous, get off the bike and walk it across.

The constant drip of Daily Mail style comments suggesting that cyclists routinely jump red lights means drivers are almost expecting it. I nearly got taken out by the car behind me the other day because I stopped on the amber at a pedestrian crossing and he clearly wanted to zip through in my lawbreaking wake.

There are times when London streets feel like the Tour de France and not in a good way. It is perfectly normal for cyclists to break the speed limit, disregard red lights, filter lights, pedestrian crossings.... at rush hour there can be a group of 15 bikes all tearing through red lights, weaving in and out of traffic on all sides,

It isn’t like polite gentle cycling at all.

And for those who criticise cyclists in the middle of the road:
a) see my point about car doors opening
b) have you seen the state of the roads? Seriously? My cycle to work has loads of pot holes. That's fine if you're in the safety of your car, not if you're on a bike.
c) The amount of rubbish on the roads. Do you seriously expect me to chance cycling over cans and bottles?

Who pays for the cyclists new infrastructure? They don’t pay road tax but should contribute if they feel so strongly. And they should have compulsory insurance as do drivers of any other vehicle.

@MrsDrudge

“Road tax”

Laughs uncontrollably.

Honestly, if people remain so utterly and self-enforcedly thick of even the most basic facts, they should just not chime in.

Educate yourself.

I can see a pedestrian crossing from my desk. I gaze out of the window when I am on the phone. Honestly, it is routine for a significant number of cyclists to ignore a red light.

It is a crossing used by secondary school kids to get to a bus stop. It often seems that cyclists see it as ok to weave past teenagers on the crossing, they tend to stop for older people. But teens get no respect.

Of course the majority of cyclists have more regard for their own and others’ safety but the Lycra Menace is alive and well in a cycle lane (and everywhere else) near you!

They don’t pay road tax but should contribute if they feel so strongly.

The old canard.

Vehicle Excise Duty is an emissions-based tax. You pay based on how dirty and polluting your vehicle is.

Road improvements are paid for out of general taxation - ie by people who go to work, among them the cycle commuters who unreasonably just want some of the tax they pay to go towards ways to stop them getting squashed under a tipper lorry.

The people sitting in the queue moaning about cyclists and infrastructure should understand that every person who swaps their metal box for a bike is making the queue shorter and the fug that everyone is breathing less toxic.

Cyclists should definitely cycle in the middle of the lane, unless there is a cycle path. They are road users like everyone else, and the safety instruction is to ride in the centre of the lane.

There is evidence that the greater numbers of female cyclists hit is due to them feeling less assertive in riding in the middle of the road.

In 100 years when historians look back at the mad things they used to do at the start of the 21st century, making cyclists share the road with cars will be one of them. It’s so obviously counterintuitive that will be a wtf moment, like putting children in the back of a car without a seatbelt, or smoking in a cinema.

The instruction is to ride in the middle of the lane (primary position) in situations where you are keeping up with traffic flow or when safe overtaking is not possible (ie at blind bends or where there are parked cars ).

Otherwise, riding a foot or so out from the kerb allows traffic to pass.

It is hard to be assertive and take primary because many drivers do not understand why you are doing it, and try to force their way past anyhow.

OMG road tax has finally made an appearance- it’s cyclists bingo!

Being held up on country roads by single or packs of cyclists is just life - you have no more right to use the road or overtake people because you are in a car

And I do wish the OP would engage in some logic

As Road Tax was abolished in 1937 and those little Highway Code handbooks explains how emissions tax works, I move that anyone shouting about "cyclists not paying road tax" should be immediately disqualified from driving, pending a retest.

If you're not aware of the abolition of road tax, what other changes in driving legislation are you ignoring from the past 82 years?

And they should have compulsory insurance as do drivers of any other vehicle.

Really, everyone should have third party insurance commensurate with the risks associated with all their activities. Householders usually have some associated with their home policy, but if you don't think the sum insured would cover the maximum liability then it's a good idea to get more. We tend to err on the side of extreme caution. E.g DH signed DD up to a cycling organisation as it included a larger sum. She's not a reckless cyclist at all, but the consequences of an accident which caused a third party a life-changing injury would be catastrophic. Similarly one of the reasons for having expensive pet insurance is the liability cover.

Where do you draw the line on what requires insurance cover by law? Pedestrians can cause accidents, but no one would suggest we have to have insurance to walk. Driving requires it because accidents to property and persons are common and more often serious. Cycling is somewhere between, and with levels from occasional outing on off-road paths to the fast road bikers. (Mountain bikers are mostly a danger to themselves, I reckon). So, those who think insurance for cyclists should be mandatory- is that all cyclists, everywhere? Propose a sensible, enactable, law and start a yougov petition.

On my local roads, riding only a foot or so from the kerb means hitting all the potholes, lowered drains etc. and a much higher risk of wobbling from over-cambered roads etc., getting punctures etc.
It also makes me less visible to cars, so more likely that they'll pass too close as they don't see me as soon as they would if I was further in from the kerb.

It's much safer for cyclists to ride at least 2-3 feet from the kerb

Fair enough - I normally ride a little outside the line of the drain covers etc but there's certainly an argument for being a bit more assertive, particularly if you are less visible and drivers are more aggressive.

This is pretty repetitive and I echo PP re there are inconsiderate people, who could be either/and pedestrians, cyclists, car/van/lorry/bus drivers.

Cyclists jump red lights because they can get away with it and more cars would be doing this too if there weren't any anpr cameras. Licensing cyclists isn't the way to go, more police on the beat to enforce existing laws. I think jay walking should be classified as an offence.

To tackle issues:
-Cycling proficiency/bikeability should be part of the national curriculum. Many benefits from cycling (health/environment);
-Traffic/transport awareness initiatives, including sitting in the cab of a lorry to see their blindspots, videos from the perspective of drivers of large vehicles to understand the issues they experience on the roads;
-Compulsory cycling proficiency/ on the road cycling experience of a minimum number of hours and have to encounter at least pedestrian crossings, roundabouts, traffic light junctions, single/dual carriageways.

Essentially people need to be more considerate/aware of other road users and follow all aspects of the highway code, not just the compulsory elements . How to make people considerate though.

Essentially people need to be more considerate/aware of other road users and follow all aspects of the highway code, not just the compulsory elements . How to make people considerate though

I think there should be a simulator for drivers where if they hit a cyclist or pedestrians there’s a bump & crunching sound, and they have to see the injured/dead (simulated) person and the mangled bike.

Based on my commuting experience, drivers don’t consider the harm they can do to non-drivers. It doesn’t occur to them that they could seriously injure or kill another person. That’s the only reason i can think of for the unsafe driving I see every day—I don’t like to think drivers actually want to hurt anyone so am putting it down to carelessness and ignorance.

How to make people considerate though

The options on the current multiple choice theory test are horrifying. For example,

What action would you take when elderly people are crossing the road?

Possible answers:
 

A. Wave them across so they know that you've seen them

B. Be patient and allow them to cross in their own time

C. Rev the engine to let them know that you're waiting

D. Tap the horn in case they're hard of hearing

mocktheorytest.com/highway-code-questions/car/vulnerable/what-action-would-you-take-when-elderly-people-are-crossing-the-road-AB2138/

WTF would think you're supposed to rev your engine at elderly people crossing the road?

Maybe I didn’t explain myself properly for those who couldn’t understand. If cyclists want a new infrastructure to aid their choice of transport they should contribute to it; perhaps a “road cycling tax”. It may be an old canard but that doesn’t diminish its validity.
Same for insurance - to benefit both the cyclist and anyone else involved in an accident

I ride to school every morning with two kids, 5 and 7. We wear helmets, use reflective jackets and lights in winter, signal before turning, stop at zebra crossings and ride on cyclepaths or marked cycle lanes where available, but we have to cycle one short single-lane stretch that has a mixture of school and commercial traffic.

Every morning inconsiderate drivers put our safety at risk. A side road comes in on a corner with a stop sign: cars come round too fast, not intending to stop, braking at the last minute when they see us, ending up with their front end over the line so we have to swing out to cycle round them. This has happened so often that I ride in front to the junction and cycle across it slowly, effectively blocking it, so the kids can get past.

Cars will also try and bully their way past us as we cycle this stretch, nosing up close behind and trying to force us up against he kerb so they can overtake. There's just no room to do this. You better fucking believe I ride wide on this section. I sit square in the middle of the road letting the kids go ahead, until they are safely off that section of road. I hold out an arm to indicate that we are coming off the road at the next junction. But still they're revving at my back mudguard, irate.

The biggest joke is, this whole section is under 100m!

So don't talk to me about the Highway Code. In my experience a majority of car drivers have erased it from their memory (if they ever read it) especially the following rules:

Rule 163:
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake. Move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)

Rule 211:
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.

Rule 212:
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

Rule 213:
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

Maybe I didn’t explain myself properly for those who couldn’t understand. If cyclists want a new infrastructure to aid their choice of transport they should contribute to it; perhaps a “road cycling tax”.

Oh I see now. I'd be interested in links to show when and how motorists were charged to build the (exclusively motor vehicles) motorway network? Obviously if it's sauce for the goose, right?

And maybe something to explain how people who drive AND ride AND walk AND use public transport etc get their rebates for when they are not using each facility they have paid for?

Mrs drudge perhaps cyclists should be exempt from 'road tax' given they are not contributing to the wear and tear of the road and they are not contributing to pollution

mobile.twitter.com/ormondroyd/status/910244326567006211

Cyclists paying for cycling infrastructure is not going to happen. For one very simple reason: more people cycling is one of the rare universal wins in transport policy.

Every time you see a cyclist from your car, you should mentally thank them: for reducing pollution, keeping themselves healthy, reducing wear and tear on the roads, reducing traffic congestion, reducing the space needed for parking, reducing fatal and life-altering car accidents. They're saving you money with every pedal.