New Highway Code Rules

[Xdama]

If it's the lane you're talking about, cyclists absolutely do not have priority at junctions. Instead the main road has priority and they hit Toucan crossings, which use radar to wait until the main road is empty or a two-minute time-out elapses, when they finally change.

Why would you use anything where traffic alongside you gets priority at junctions while you wait?

Toucans are pedestrian crossing …. A cyclist is NOT a pedestrian. Not only that but the new highway code states cyclists and pedestrians have priority at junctions. Oh and all pedestrian crossing wait for an input from a pushbutton until the max green time has run out on the road. They change as do all traffic signals purely to check whether any red lamps have failed, these being classed as high priority failures. (Ex traffic signal engineer among many other things)
plus of course the average cyclist ignores all traffic signals anyway so why would it make a difference to them. Untaxed, unlicense, uninsured and now competely absolved of any responsibilities too.

 

[Tigermad]

Toucans are pedestrian crossing …. A cyclist is NOT a pedestrian. Not only that but the new highway code states cyclists and pedestrians have priority at junctions. Oh and all pedestrian crossing wait for an input from a pushbutton until the max green time has run out on the road. They change as do all traffic signals purely to check whether any red lamps have failed, these being classed as high priority failures. (Ex traffic signal engineer among many other things)
plus of course the average cyclist ignores all traffic signals anyway so why would it make a difference to them. Untaxed, unlicense, uninsured and now competely absolved of any responsibilities too.

Toucan crossings are for both cyclists and pedestrians.

 

[Fursty Ferret]

plus of course the average cyclist ignores all traffic signals anyway so why would it make a difference to them. Untaxed, unlicense, uninsured and now competely absolved of any responsibilities too.

You forgot "lycra lout".

Toucans are pedestrian crossing ….

Are you absolutely sure that you should be driving with such poor knowledge of road rules, especially after admitting that you disable all the safety features on your car?

 

[G4WFT]

plus of course the average cyclist ignores all traffic signals anyway so why would it make a difference to them. Untaxed, unlicense, uninsured and now competely absolved of any responsibilities too.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. How do you know what an "average" cyclist is? As I said in an earlier post, the law doesn't require a cyclist to be taxed, licensed or insured at present. I might as well make the statement that the "average" motorist doesn't respect a cyclist as a valid road user - it's just as unprovable and, frankly, daft as your assertion.

 

[Xdama]

Toucan crossings are for both cyclists and pedestrians.

I stand corrected, still have to have a demand for them to change priority though ie. Push a button

 

[Xdama]

You forgot "lycra lout".


Are you absolutely sure that you should be driving with such poor knowledge of road rules, especially after admitting that you disable all the safety features on your car?

Why did I forget “lycra lout” …. Not all wear lycra. They do jump lights though, jump onto pavements ad hoc without A care for pedestrians.

Re disabling all the safety features on my car …. are you sure you own a Tesla or even a modern car at all? You can’t disable the vast majority of safety features, don’t get me wrong, I would do if I could. As I’ve managed well over 30yrs without an accident or claim I reckon I can do pretty well without the bings, bongs & chimes.

 

[Xdama]

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. How do you know what an "average" cyclist is? As I said in an earlier post, the law doesn't require a cyclist to be taxed, licensed or insured at present. I might as well make the statement that the "average" motorist doesn't respect a cyclist as a valid road user - it's just as unprovable and, frankly, daft as your assertion.

You’re perfectly correct they aren’t required to be currently, I’m saying they should be, nothing else. As you live in Northants you have no idea what the average cyclist in Bradford is like, they’re special, along with the loons who think it ok to ride a offroad motorbike with no number plates whilst wearing no helmet, popping wheelies but they’re another case entirely.
BTW when I ride my bike, I use cycle lanes where they’re provided, I also stop at stop lines, red lights etc & don’t bunny hop onto the footpath to get past them too. There again I’m NOT an average cyclist around there. Oh and I don’t wear lycra either, I do have working lights (2 front, 2 back), my arm sticks out when turning and I wear a helmet and don’t cycle wearing clothes suited to the old Milk Tray adds either.

 

[Xdama]

And dispite all your wokish displeasure at my comments …. not one of you has explained why it is not necessary for cyclists to use a fully functional, full traffic lane width cycle path which cost god knows how many 100k to install

 

[curmudgeon]

Cyclists. humph!
They do not pollute the air, they make no noise, they cause no congestion, nor do thay wear out our roads, but how dare they not pay VED.
They cause little harm in any collision but how dare they not be insured.

I spend more than they do on transport so how dare they go faster than me!

Cyclists, now your place!
Tax them, tax them, I say! Force them off the roads!

 

[curmudgeon]

And dispite all your wokish displeasure at my comments …. not one of you has explained why it is not necessary for cyclists to use a fully functional, full traffic lane width cycle path which cost god knows how many 100k to install

Because most UK cycle paths are poorly designed and/or dangerous.
The good ones are used all the time. Look at Amsterdam.

 

[Xdama]

Because most UK cycle paths are poorly designed and/or dangerous.
The good ones are used all the time. Look at Amsterdam.

I’ll just put this here again because you obviously missed it

use a fully functional, full traffic lane width cycle path

 

[Xdama]

Cyclists. humph!
They do not pollute the air, they make no noise, they cause no congestion, nor do thay wear out our roads, but how dare they not pay VED.
They cause little harm in any collision but how dare they not be insured.

I spend more than they do on transport so how dare they go faster than me!

Cyclists, now your place!
Tax them, tax them, I say! Force them off the roads!

They cause no congestion ….. my arse

cause little harm in an accident ….. yep tell that to the many pedestrians who’ve been run into by one …. or the car drivers who’ve had scratches put down the inside of their cars (not necessarily by accident)

I cycle a bit, I have full personal liabilty insurance though (not just for cycling I admit) and anyone who uses the roads should pay to use them, why not? Yes including EV drivers before you jump on that one.

 

[curmudgeon]

They cause no congestion ….. my arse

cause little harm in an accident ….. yep tell that to the many pedestrians who’ve been run into by one …. or the car drivers who’ve had scratches put down the inside of their cars (not necessarily by accident)

I cycle a bit, I have full personal liabilty insurance though (not just for cycling I admit) and anyone who uses the roads should pay to use them, why not? Yes including EV drivers before you jump on that one.

Cyclists cause congestion! So if all those cyclists that annoy you so much were in cars, there would be less congestion? Are you on the glue?

Let me think.... Run over by car or bicycle? Which one is best? I'll have the bike, you can have the car

 

[curmudgeon]

 

[Xdama]

Cyclists. humph!
They do not pollute the air, they make no noise, they cause no congestion, nor do thay wear out our roads, but how dare they not pay VED.
They cause little harm in any collision but how dare they not be insured.

I spend more than they do on transport so how dare they go faster than me!

Cyclists, now your place!
Tax them, tax them, I say! Force them off the roads!

They cause no congestion ….. my arse

cause little harm in an accident ….. yep tell that to the many pedestrians who’ve been run into by one …. or the car drivers who’ve had scratches put down the inside of their cars (not necessarily by accident)

I cycle a bit, I have full personal liabilty insurance though (not just for cycling I admit) and anyone who uses the roads should pay to use them, why not? Yes including EV drivers before you jump on that one.

Cyclists cause congestion! So if all those cyclists that annoy you so much were in cars, there would be less congestion? Are you on the glue?

Let me think.... Run over by car or bicycle? Which one is best? I'll have the bike, you can have the car

so you’re trying to tell me a cyclist doing 15mph in the middle of a lane is not going to cause a traffic holdup? I think the glue is all yours mate.

You were the one who said cyclists caused little if no harm, I just refuted that. I never said cars didn’t hurt people did I lol. Cars don’t generally bunny hop on and off the footpath though do they, they’re also easier to spot for pedestrians & if pedestrians and motorists use the crossing and roads as intended then no incidents would happen would they.

Cyclist 'jumped red light and killed pedestrian Peter McCombie'

Peter McCombie died from severe brain injuries after he was struck in Tower Hamlets last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

I’ll put that there for you though because clearly no cyclist ever caused any harm to anyone according to you …..enjoy your glue

 

[Xdama]

View attachment 762519

Time taken to travel 100 miles whilst carrying 2x 100litre cargo bags plus a laptop bag please in all those modes of transport at the maximum speed they can legally attain?

 

[Xdama]

They cause no congestion ….. my arse

cause little harm in an accident ….. yep tell that to the many pedestrians who’ve been run into by one …. or the car drivers who’ve had scratches put down the inside of their cars (not necessarily by accident)

I cycle a bit, I have full personal liabilty insurance though (not just for cycling I admit) and anyone who uses the roads should pay to use them, why not? Yes including EV drivers before you jump on that one.

so you’re trying to tell me a cyclist doing 15mph in the middle of a lane is not going to cause a traffic holdup? I think the glue is all yours mate.

You were the one who said cyclists caused little if no harm, I just refuted that. I never said cars didn’t hurt people did I lol. Cars don’t generally bunny hop on and off the footpath though do they, they’re also easier to spot for pedestrians & if pedestrians and motorists use the crossing and roads as intended then no incidents would happen would they.

Cyclist 'jumped red light and killed pedestrian Peter McCombie'

Peter McCombie died from severe brain injuries after he was struck in Tower Hamlets last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

I’ll put that there for you though because clearly no cyclist ever caused any harm to anyone according to you …..enjoy your glue

Please note what did the cyclist NOT do at the RED light? Maybe he had some of your glue

 

[G4WFT]

And dispite all your wokish displeasure at my comments …. not one of you has explained why it is not necessary for cyclists to use a fully functional, full traffic lane width cycle path which cost god knows how many 100k to install

You need to calm down and try and regain some sense of perspective.

 

[Xdama]

You need to calm down and try and regain some sense of perspective.

I’m very calm, chilled in fact. I just don’t expect to go to a restaurant, eat their food and then walk out without paying. Apparently some on here think there’s nothing wrong with that. I have a car, it’s insured, I have a business that’s insured too, I have a dog, yep that’s insured too and so am I when riding my bike. I see no reason why anyone thinks getting a bike exempts the person riding it from being insured and using what has been provided for them (free of charge).
Clearly you and others think it’s free school meal time for everyone. Whereas I think if you use something you should pay for it.

Have a peachy day

 

[curmudgeon]

I’m very calm, chilled in fact. I just don’t expect to go to a restaurant, eat their food and then walk out without paying. Apparently some on here think there’s nothing wrong with that. I have a car, it’s insured, I have a business that’s insured too, I have a dog, yep that’s insured too and so am I when riding my bike. I see no reason why anyone thinks getting a bike exempts the person riding it from being insured and using what has been provided for them (free of charge).
Clearly you and others think it’s free school meal time for everyone. Whereas I think if you use something you should pay for it.

Have a peachy day

Do you pay to walk down the street? Because that has the same impact on the environment and others as cycling.