9hrs is all it took!

[Finallylostit]

The new highway code to cause anger!

I went for my morning cycle - no issues did nothing different than I normally do.

Home, shower, jump in car to get food shopping. I live down a country road - wide enough for 2 cars to pass with care, wide enough for a car to over take a cyclist sticking to the left of the lane, with the required space at certain points. Locals all know the places to do it safely.

Today 1 cyclist riding down the middle of the lane - now unsafe for car to pull over to other lane and pass - brilliant

Was he considerate of other road users and pulled over- no.

As on the other side were 8 riders riding two abreast high fiving each other and doing the finger to the motorists. Shouting its the law twats!
Were they considerate of other road users no.

Some of the new laws i think are sensible -
but the ride in the middle of the road, even if there is a cycle lane because you don't feel like it - is asinine

2 abreast packs of mamils hunting on weekends as they venture out of London - when they are generally rude enough as it is - gives those cyclists who are arseholes a legal right to now be an arsehole.

Be considerate and pull over to let cars and vans pass -
that is as likely as Downing Street not having another party in a lockdown!

Well we'll see how this plays out in reality then. It'll result in increased accidents.

Barrow posting this again

The correct way to pass cyclists or anything at all has always been to go into the oncoming lane unless the road is exceptionally wide. If there is oncoming traffic do not overtake.

It is people like you who have been overtaking incorrectly and unsafely that is why the rules have been clarified. Those people who already don’t drive unsafely will notice no change to the way they pass cyclists.

It takes longer to go into the oncoming lane and go right around than to pass a cyclist who is keeping to the left.

jfc

BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation So why hasn’t it resulted in thousands of incidents in the many other countries that already do this?

Is it that British drivers are poor drivers in comparison?

Studies show that car drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets than those who don’t. So do all the motorists advocating for mandatory helmet wearing want cyclists to wear them so they feel better about cutting them up?

@BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation

Well we'll see how this plays out in reality then. It'll result in increased accidents.

Only if twatty drivers insist in literally plowing straight through cyclists.

I refuse to believe that anyone that's ever actually driven a car has not seen a cyclist in primary. Ever. Give over

I advise some posters don't try driving in Germany. At certain junctions it is possible for both the pedestrian/bike light and the filter light for cars turning off the main road to be green at the same time. Onus on car drivers to not drive through the junction if pedestrians or bikes are crossing.

Maybe they can also borrow the traffic jam rule where you move to the edge of a lane in slow or stationary traffic to create a path for emergency vehicles.

Studies show that car drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets than those who don’t. So do all the motorists advocating for mandatory helmet wearing want cyclists to wear them so they feel better about cutting them up?

I don't wear a helmet but there's a million and one good arguments for them that have got nothing to do with other people's driving. I'm not saying they should be mandatory and I reckon there's probably a fair crossover between these angry people who demand it and people who get angry about personal freedoms (as long as it's their own obviously)

@BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation

Rubbish. It takes longer to go into the oncoming lane and go right around than to pass a cyclist who is keeping to the left.

You seem to be missing the key point that whether the cyclist is on the left or the middle of the lane the actions of the driver should be the same.

Only someone who currently passes cyclists dangerously close will need to change their behaviour.

@Frozentoes2

Just want to respond to some comments about cyclists ringing their bell on country lanes so that pedestrians “are aware” of them...

This has happened to me a LOT and whenever I turn round the cyclist never appears to be slowing down. So it really does seem like an “I’ve arrived and can’t possibly stop, move out of my way”signal.

Some of you cyclists on here know that you ring your bell expecting pedestrians to jump out of the way. Imagine if cars beeped their horns every time they saw a cyclist to “let the cyclist know they were there”, and that it was time to move over! I’m guessing it wouldn’t be a very enjoyable journey for the cyclist!

And to those cyclists saying oh but i wouldn’t be able to stop at short notice if someone walked in front of me .... I don’t think that’s good enough. What if a child or small animal ran out in front of you on a country lane. If you can’t control your speed and do an emergency stop then you shouldn’t be allowed to cycle where pedestrians are (or anywhere).

Cars are expected to do an emergency stop, as are other vehicles. I think there needs to be a limit on how fast cyclist can go so that they don’t injure anyone who steps in front of them.

Oh and I’m not condoning stepping out in front of cars or cyclists by the way. I politely move myself and my children every time an annoying cyclists pings their bell at me (and then speeds past without saying thank you). But sometimes accidents happen and you can’t just cycle around at speed with the attitude of, “I’m a cyclist, if someone steps out in front of me and gets hurt it’s all their fault” in the same way that car drivers can’t afford to think like this.

I certainly never ring my bell to try & frighten pedestrians! If I wanted to do that, I would approach silently from behind & zig-zag round them, or shout "BOO" or something! From my point of view, many pedestrians stroll along without a care in the world, wandering from side to side as if they're drunk, kids & dogs darting around all over the place & and they don't seem to hear you as you're approaching on your bike. So it's sensible to make sure they are aware of you! As a pedestrian, I signal to a cyclist that I am now aware of them by looking back quickly & moving to the side. As a motorist, too, if I see a cyclist in front of me wobbling about from side to side in front of me, I sometimes hoot briefly to them to let them know there is a motorist behind them who wants to overtake. Just a quick "toot", obviously, not a rude sustained honk.

@JuergenSchwarzwald

Imagine if cars beeped their horns every time they saw a cyclist to “let the cyclist know they were there”, and that it was time to move over! I’m guessing it wouldn’t be a very enjoyable journey for the cyclist

Indeed. I hate being "belled" by a cyclist when I am walking. Even more so when I am well over to the left and there is plenty of room to get past me. Why do you need to ring your bell at all?

When I am cycling I only ring my bell if a whole family group is spread across the path and they ignore an "excuse me". Actually I'd quite like a bell when I am out walking and running for those occasions, too.

I'm absolutely astonished that being 'belled' bothers you! Even if you are near the edge of the path, the cyclist has no way of knowing that you won't suddenly dart across into the middle of the path, or that your dog (if you have one) won't! If I'm out walking or running & I hear a bell behind me, I will make sure I'm near the edge of the path, and I won't move from the edge until they have passed.

I think this is all fine for the majority of people out cycling a to b. If I couldn’t pull over completely in my car I’d wait until I could, takes a very short time. Yes there are drivers who pass shockingly close. The issue is the large groups of riders doing timed routes for sport. They don’t want to slow down for horses or pedestrians, they cut corners on the wrong side of the road so they don’t need to slow down. They’re 3 a breast with no gaps for 20 metres down the road. If the primary aim is speed rather than an awareness of the road and other people then they really should be on a designated sports track. And I think this is what the OP was describing?

You seem to have completely misunderstood the changes, try having another read.

I don’t think anyone objects to the bell, it’s sensible and useful, more the common belief of a lot of cyclists that it’s an instruction to jump into the hedge rather a polite warning so you don’t zig zag across the path. We have a lot of leisure cyclists down our way at the weekend and a lot of them do think they have right of way and that you should get in the rough for them.

With this new hierarchy of harm cyclists should remember that, just as they expect cars to wait until it’s safe to pass wisely- it’s only a few minutes after all, just leave earlier to complete your journey in time- they should also be prepared to wait behind pedestrians when in a shared area.

I’ve got no problem with a bell being used to earn pedestrians of bikes either- surely it makes sense because you don’t necessarily hear a cycle approaching. The cyclist should also slow down to give people a chance to get out the way

@Cbtb

Studies show that car drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets than those who don’t. So do all the motorists advocating for mandatory helmet wearing want cyclists to wear them so they feel better about cutting them up?

Ha ha, drat, you figured it out!

@Tzimi

I think a bell should only be used on a footpath once a cyclist has stopped or is going so slowly that they could easily stop, and should be used as an alternative to saying excuse me.

So if you are cycling along and you see a family you should slow right down or stop behind them, and then say excuse me or ring your bell if you want to get past. Or even better, you could stop, get off of your bike, push it past them and then get on it again. That would only take a couple of seconds.

Ringing your bell whilst going fast is pressuring people to move out of your way quickly, whether you mean to or not. Because the pedestrians don’t know if you’re a reasonable person who will slow down in time if they don’t move, so have to assume that you won’t and jump out of the way to protect themselves.

Honestly if you have kids it can be really irritating to repeatedly have to quickly move them out of the way for someone on their bike. Toddlers don’t necessarily understand why it’s important to move quickly and there is always that worry some of the cyclists won’t stop in time.

And I don’t know why kids “darting around” enjoying themselves on a country walk ( as they should be!) would be an issue for you!? Because the onus is on you, a faster vehicle approaching from behind, to slow down before you get anywhere near them! The onus is not on the family to quickly move them out of your way, so that you don’t have to stop.

If I see a cyclist when driving I understand I need to slow down or even stop, and then only overtake once it’s safe. If I applied the logic that some cyclist apply to pedestrians on footpaths, I would toot my horn at the cyclists so they know I’m there, then expect them to quickly move onto the pavement (plus any kids cycling next to them), and then maybe shout thanks out the window if feeling generous!

Surely if cyclists claim to be just like any other road user & entitled to be in the middle of the lane etc, they should follow their own advice & when the cars in front stop at a red light the cyclists should all stay where they are in the queue, as they arrive behind stationary vehicles?

No filtering, no weaving in & out, no under/overtaking, no sudden love of cycle lanes to enable them to get to the front of the queue & hold up even more people.

Sauce for the goose, as they say. It would also have the advantage of spreading out the cyclists, making it easier for drivers to overtake them.

Or perhaps we should rework the rules & traffic lights, so that all cyclists wait when the lights go green, drivers get away first & cyclists aren't holding anybody up because they're allowed to set off by a 'bikes only' green light once a number of cars have had their time to get away from the junction. It won't hold the cyclists up much & it gets them (as the slower road users) safely behind the faster vehicles.

-

Just as a matter of interest, what are the top/ average speeds for cyclists? As in, racing MAMILs = one category, commuting cyclists = another, Mum with kids = another. How much slower than motorised traffic are bikes? How do bike speeds compare with road speed limits? Are there official stats for this?

-

I'd also like to say that I've never (in decades of driving) seen a cyclist get out of my way, let alone dismount to let me pass, no matter how long I've been stuck behind them. The most (& worst) I've seen is an enormous group of older leisure cyclists who stopped straggling all over the road when I came up behind them, lined themselves up two abreast on the left & thereby blocked me from passing because they didn't leave gaps between pairs/ groups of cyclists, so we then had an artic's worth of bunched-up cyclists on a narrow, winding country road: I couldn't even see the front of the pack once they'd done that, because it was round the next bend or two. They also got VERY cross that I was driving a respectful distance behind them & so making them stay two abreast - apparently I was supposed to overtake all of them at once on some blind bend on a 60mph road, into the face of who knows what, just so that they could go back to straggling & chatting.

I don’t think anyone objects to the bell - there were quite a few posts last year about how annoying bell ringing is from cyclists. Shall I find link to that thread?

Just as a matter of interest, what are the top/ average speeds for cyclists? As in, racing MAMILs = one category, commuting cyclists = another, Mum with kids = another. How much slower than motorised traffic are bikes? How do bike speeds compare with road speed limits? Are there official stats for this?

If you read back through this thread someone posted the average speed of cyclists and cars in various cities.

@BungleandGeorge

I’ve got no problem with a bell being used to earn pedestrians of bikes either- surely it makes sense because you don’t necessarily hear a cycle approaching. The cyclist should also slow down to give people a chance to get out the way

Why should pedestrians get out of the way of cyclists? There's now a hierachy of vulnerability:

'The hierarchy places road users in order from most to least at risk of being injured, like so:

Pedestrians – children, older adults and disabled people being more at risk
Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles
Drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis, and motorcycles'

from: www.deeside.com/substantial-changes-to-highway-code-come-into-force-today/

Surely cyclists should give way to pedestrians?

@BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation

It's safer to pass a cyclist who is riding on the left. It doesn't mean people are passing too close.

Oh ffs. No it is not IF THERE ISNT ENOUGH SPACE TO PASS THEM SAFELY!!!! What do you not get?? You need to give 1.5m to pass a bike safely. That is the law. You really shouldn't have a driving licence.

@ifIwerenotanandroid if it's a shared space and the pedestrians can move over safely to let the cyclist go past, why wouldn't they?
Just like cyclists should ride in the centre of the lane if they could move over and the car behind could then pass them safely giving them 1.5m space as per the law.

No one has to behave like a petulant test do they?

That should have said "petulant tit"