New Highway Code Rules

[PITA]

So then, how are you getting on with them so far?

I was stuck in a single lane roadworks last weekend... for about a mile behind a single cyclist in the middle of the road blocking the lane completely.

I'm ok about it all, just happily sat behind watching it all unfold, as an extremely frustrated 4x4 drives through the roadworks cones on the wrong side... then through the roadworks area at speed (to overtake the cyclist), and then drives back through the cones into the lane again.

I think there's going to be trouble...

 

[morrishey]

Not sure the new Highway Code revisions can be held responsible for drivers that choose to act like d1cks

 

[M1tch]

When are they going to consider compulsory insurance for bikes? Or making them stop at red lights? Or not become a pedestrian to swerve a red light? Or have lights? Or have lights that don’t flash so they are only actually on 50% of the time? Or wear a helmet? The list goes on. When cyclists use the road like the rest of us, I’ll consider these latest restrictions on drivers

 

[morrishey]

I don’t really want to get into a bike v car match - they never end well and both parties are equal road users and human beings, but except insurance and helmets all those things are requirements. The fact that some cyclists choose to not obey the laws is no different to some drivers choosing not to obey some laws (running red lights, speeding, parking on double yellows, parking obstructing footpaths as a few examples). I don’t think “using the road like the rest of us” is necessarily a good thing

 

[M1tch]

But if I did any of those bad things in a car - I’d get a fine. Never seen that happen to a cyclist. I’ll leave it there…

 

[morrishey]

You’d only get fined if you got caught

 

[Mr H]

Meanwhile the cyclist that scraped down the side of my car whilst i was sat in a queue a number of years ago, rode off into the distance with impunity. If ANY vehicle uses the road it should be registered so that miscreants can be brought to justice, regardless of how it is powered.

 

[Pandinium]

The new Highway Code reads that that they should move back to the left when a vehicle moving faster than them is wanting to pass - but most bike users are arrogant and read the rules in only one way. And yes I ride a bike too but as I’m not a and see both sides so move.

 

[PITA]

Seven 'cyclists' rode past our house on electric bikes the other night, all in black, riding into oncoming traffic, then on the pavement... then further up the road my Son (walking back home) saw them ride round a roundabout the wrong way.

Got it on our house security cameras. But absolutely no way of holding them accountable.

Kids* with Power...


* Kids who can afford electric bikes and black outfits...

 

[Ferret]

I like the changes, always give cyclists plenty of room anyhow.

I've witnessed both cyclists and motorists break the rules of the road, motorists clearly represent greater risk to others.

 

[Stuart1714]

I agree with most of the changes but I’d like to have seen regulation, including helmets, on the use of electric bikes and scooters. Its not right that you can jump on a hired electric scooter but not use your own. New regulation is required to keep up with technology to safeguard these users and also pedestrians and other road users. I’ll leave it to the regulators to decide whether you need a licence, tax, insurance and limits on the speed.

 

[PeteB]

I think most of us would agree that making the roads safer for everyone is desirable, but some of the changes don't make sense. I particularly disagree that cyclists don't have to use cycle lanes even if they are present. Millions of pounds have been spent on cycle lanes, they have often been placed in areas that have been highlighted as hazardous for cyclists to use the road, yet cyclists can choose not to use them and put themselves and other drivers are higher risk. My commute includes areas where mile long extra wide pavements were created several years ago, split into pedestrian and cycle lanes. Cyclists prefer to use the road causing danger to themselves & other road users, and of course causing congestion. Surely it would have been much more sensible for the highway code changes to include rules that make cyclists use cycle lanes when they are present, if they don't use them what is the point in them being there?

I'm also confused by the rule that drivers have to stop to let a pedestrian cross the road at a junction. How is this going work in the real world, say in a busy town where a driver could have an endless stream of pedestrians wanting to cross the road. Are you supposed to stop if some one is waiting to cross at a junction with traffic lights and pedestrian crossings when the crossing is on red and the lights for cars are on green?

 

[Mrklaw]

- cyclists could always do this, Highway Code doesn’t really change much
- you should give cyclists 5ft of room so on most roads that means you’re in the opposite lane so whether they’re in the middle or left shouldn’t affect how you pass. in single lane roadworks that doesn’t sound safe to pass regardless of their position.
- centre position simply reinforces that passing positioning. Staying to the left can encourage close/dangerous passing
- In lengthy narrow sections I would recommend cyclists consider pulling over ti let traffics past of safe to do so - simple courtesy like you might if driving a tractor

 

[Ferret]

Cyclists will use cycle lanes, but the faster ones will avoid if they have to give way at every junction or are traveling vastly quicker than pedestrians. It's not like they want to share with cars, just most cycle lanes are badly conceived.

 

[init6]

I think there's going to be trouble...

The more worrying one ( and to take this discussion away from bikes vs cars ) is pedestrians having right of way when crossing the road at a junction. Who's going to try that one first?

 

[PeteB]

I understand your points, but to me if a dedicated cycle lane has been installed solely for the use of cyclists to aid everyone's safety it should be used. How can it be safer for a cyclist to ride on a busy A road at rush hour rather than a deserted empty cycle path?

 

[init6]

I understand your points, but to me if a dedicated cycle lane has been installed solely for the use of cyclists to aid everyone's safety it should be used. How can it be safer for a cyclist to ride on a busy A road at rush hour rather than a deserted empty cycle path?

Imagine driving along a road the that is covered in broken glass and other debris. You have to stop every 100 yards, get out the car and push it across a junction. Pedestrians are standing in the middle of the road as you come around a corner. Dogs run in front of your car at random points.
Next to you is a dual carriageway. Which one would you use?

 

[Mrklaw]

I understand your points, but to me if a dedicated cycle lane has been installed solely for the use of cyclists to aid everyone's safety it should be used. How can it be safer for a cyclist to ride on a busy A road at rush hour rather than a deserted empty cycle path?

’dedicated’ cycle lanes can vary from

- entirely physically separated from the road with bollards/pavement etc - eg north side of the thames from around waterloo to tower hill. Lovely. Safe.
- a white line painted on the road thats barely wide enough to safely ride within, goes over drains and other bumpy bits, cars parking across it whenver they want. And cars often assuming they can drive right up to the white line.

A lot of those second types are bloody dangerous and I’d argue should be banned as they’re more trouble than they’re worth

 

[PeteB]

The example you use, I agree i may use the Dual carriageway, but would have to accept there are other risks. But, how about a Single carriageway A road, mile long stretch which is used by lorries, vans, cars, is fairly poorly lit and has a double width pavement split for pedestrians and cyclists. Pavement set back 20 foot away from the A road. Very rarely any pedestrians or dog walkers as not near housing. Which would you use?

Every situation is different, but the default should be to use the facilities that have been provided to improve safety.

 

[Mrklaw]

I’d use the shared use path to keep away from vehicles because I wouldn’t trust them. But I’m not an active cyclist so my speeds wouldn’t be high. If I cycled more quickly I could understand keeping off shared paths due to the danger I’d potentially provide to pedestrians.

In your example though if they are quiet, I would think it would be polite to traffic at busy times to use the shared space and just accept you may need to slow occasionally if you come across pedestrians.