|
"It's not difficult and most people would probably do it anyway."
In my experience "most" do not. I walk the streets quite a lot, sometimes with my dogs and sometimes alone for exercise. The new rule is either deliberately ignored or perhaps just not known about. The area I live in has fairly light traffic, so it makes little practical difference.
What does annoy me is drivers reversing off driveways across the pavement and only pausing to see if the road is clear, not the pavement.
|
I'm agree with you
Hmmm. I wonder what will come next? Canned pork products or something useful?
|
|
|
|
If you are turning into a side road you should give way to pedestrians crossing:
www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction#...2
www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-roa...0
It's not difficult and most people would probably do it anyway.
To be honest, I think it's dangerous and causes more pollution, because it means the vechicle turning in has to suddenly stop, but leaving the back end of their vehicle jutting out into the main road, at best causing traffic there to stop because they have to then overtake or wait until the turning vehicle has gone.
I'd be more in favour of general rules of being courteous and considerate (both drivers and pedestrians), whereby someone turning into that road sees someone who's been waiting to cross for a long time or is elderly / disabled and lets them cross in a more controlled manner, especially if it were encouraged for people to cross a bit further down the road, away from the junction, so vehicles stopping for them don't block the other road or cause an accident.
Rather like the daft one saying vehicles have to pass 1m away from cycles or not at all, where too much prescription does not allow for nuance, which can be safe, e.g.. overtaking still with a decent gap, but at a slower speed, or requiring the slower cycle (or vehicle) to pull into a passing point or over to the LHS (where it's safe to do so) rather than ride down the middle of the lane / road. Obviously with horse + rider you'd have to make further compromises for obvious safety reasons.
Sad that common sense is being replaced by more rigid (by mostly enforceable or where people can use them to unfairly perseucute others) rules that are worse than what went before in most cases.
|
|
I think that the advised distance to pass a cyclist is !.5 metres and from what I observe is happening generally. Unfortunately the same courtesy is not reciprocated by a lot of cyclists. Most are cycle club members or just those who ride in twos. They ride in the middle of the lane usually chatting away without a care in the world with a queue behind and would not dream of letting them pass. In other circumstances they just do not obey the highway code
|
Most are cycle club members or just those who ride in twos. They ride in the middle of the lane 8<snip>8
I haven't the foggiest how you identify club rides from any other sort of group. Riding out in their lane is exactly what Highway Code Rule 72 tells them to do.
They're no more difficult to pass than a car.
In other circumstances they just do not obey the highway code
Go on, be specific.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 09/01/2023 at 17:40
|
|
I have noticed since these new rules where announced that more motorists are getting confused / annoying how they treat pedestrians.
Example I've encounter multiple times in the last 12 month - B road with a island in the middle, waiting on the pavement, car coming along nothing behind it & it will stop to let me cross - its really annoying as I can wait 5 more seconds for the car to pass, just carry on driving.
|
I have noticed since these new rules where announced that more motorists are getting confused / annoying how they treat pedestrians.
Example I've encounter multiple times in the last 12 month - B road with a island in the middle, waiting on the pavement, car coming along nothing behind it & it will stop to let me cross - its really annoying as I can wait 5 more seconds for the car to pass, just carry on driving.
I have been stood waiting in the island of a dual carriage way and some nice driver has invited me to cross with traffic steaming up along his inside. I always decline the invite
|
|
|
|
Most are cycle club members or just those who ride in twos. They ride in the middle of the lane 8<snip>8
I haven't the foggiest how you identify club rides from any other sort of group. Riding out in their lane is exactly what Highway Code Rule 72 tells them to do.
They're no more difficult to pass than a car.
In other circumstances they just do not obey the highway code
Go on, be specific.
The cycle clubs where I live in Wales are identified with their club emblazoned on their lycra tops and their prominent backsides
Try passing them doing 15- 20mph in a 2 lane road with traffic on the other side
Jumping traffic lights riding on the pavement/pedestrianised areas going the wrong way in a one way, pulling wheelies in the middle of the road etc. Illegal use of E bikes and anything else which you have probably seen!
|
Most are cycle club members or just those who ride in twos. They ride in the middle of the lane 8<snip>8
I haven't the foggiest how you identify club rides from any other sort of group. Riding out in their lane is exactly what Highway Code Rule 72 tells them to do.
They're no more difficult to pass than a car.
In other circumstances they just do not obey the highway code
Go on, be specific.
The cycle clubs where I live in Wales are identified with their club emblazoned on their lycra tops and their prominent backsides
Try passing them doing 15- 20mph in a 2 lane road with traffic on the other side
You need to wait until there's a sufficient gap in incoming traffic to get past - just as you would with a tractor, etc
|
|
"""You need to wait until there's a sufficient gap in incoming traffic to get past - just as you would with a tractor, etc"""
Yes of course you do but if the group were considerate and rode in single file then life would be a lot easier! Sooner or later someone is going to get impatient with dire consequences all because of cyclists poor attitude to other road users
|
|
They ride next to each other to shorten the length of the thing you need to overtake. They are being considerate.
|
"""You need to wait until there's a sufficient gap in incoming traffic to get past - just as you would with a tractor, etc"""
Yes of course you do but if the group were considerate and rode in single file then life would be a lot easier! Sooner or later someone is going to get impatient with dire consequences all because of cyclists poor attitude to other road users
If they rode in single file you'd have a huge length to overtake. By bunching up you have a much shorter length like a car or a bus.
|
Yes of course you do but if the group were considerate and rode in single file then life would be a lot easier! Sooner or later someone is going to get impatient with dire consequences all because of cyclists poor attitude to other road users
For as long as I can remember, the advice re passing a cyclist in the Highway Code has to treat them as a car re how much space you give them.
So, ignoring the fact that this (AFAIK) is now the law, the only way passing a group of cyclists in single file would be easier is if you are ignoring the Highway Code.
Edited by badbusdriver on 10/01/2023 at 09:27
|
|
<< For as long as I can remember, the advice re passing a cyclist in the Highway Code has to treat them as a car re how much space you give them. >>
My HC is not the latest (2015) but while saying that, it also illustrates in section 163 'Overtaking' a car passing a cyclist allowing almost a car-width of space. However, to do this, the cyclist is shown riding just 2-3 feet from the kerb, which seems fine to me. What I object to is encouraging single cyclists to ride near the centre line, as if there were two riding abreast but the inner one had gone AWOL.
That almost amounts to wilfully obstructing traffic, which only authorised persons should be doing IMHO.
|
<< For as long as I can remember, the advice re passing a cyclist in the Highway Code has to treat them as a car re how much space you give them. >>
My HC is not the latest (2015) but while saying that, it also illustrates in section 163 'Overtaking' a car passing a cyclist allowing almost a car-width of space. However, to do this, the cyclist is shown riding just 2-3 feet from the kerb, which seems fine to me. What I object to is encouraging single cyclists to ride near the centre line, as if there were two riding abreast but the inner one had gone AWOL.
That almost amounts to wilfully obstructing traffic, which only authorised persons should be doing IMHO.
The recommendation is to ride in the centre of the lane - NOT the centre of the road.
|
|
To give a cyclist enough room whilst passing, you will need to cross the centre line of the road.
If you cross the centre line of the road, you need to be sure that there will be no oncoming traffic during the overtaking manoeuvre.
Hence, you may as well drive into the opposing lane fully.
Hence, it doesn't matter where the cyclist positions themselves in the lane.
|
Hence, it doesn't matter where the cyclist positions themselves in the lane.
.That sounds just a bit reductio ad absurdum to me, sorry. I'll leave it at that.
|
Hence, it doesn't matter where the cyclist positions themselves in the lane.
.That sounds just a bit reductio ad absurdum to me, sorry. I'll leave it at that.
If you go to Cyclecraft, the manual of cycling technique published by HMSO it refers to two positions.
The first is Primary. This puts the cyclist out in their lane, roughly in the middle of a car's ground footprint. This is intended to make the rider visible so that following motorists take account of their presence. Maybe for use in heavy traffic. I'd typically go for Primary in Central London traffic or the riskier parts of local lanes.
The other is Secondary. This puts the cyclist where the nearside wheels of the car would be, You can be safely passed but you're not too near the gutter where your risk level multiplies alarmingly with grates, rubbish, degraded tarmac, lines painted with thermoplastic paint (very slippery) and being outside the visual sweep of other road users.
|
|
<< If you go to Cyclecraft, the manual of cycling technique published by HMSO it refers to two positions. >>
Bromp, I am perfectly happy with your Secondary Position, which is where I was used to riding in my cycling days. And I would recognise the Primary position in Central London, which is a closed book to me.
|
"""You need to wait until there's a sufficient gap in incoming traffic to get past - just as you would with a tractor, etc"""
Yes of course you do but if the group were considerate and rode in single file then life would be a lot easier! Sooner or later someone is going to get impatient with dire consequences all because of cyclists poor attitude to other road users
If they rode in single file you'd have a huge length to overtake. By bunching up you have a much shorter length like a car or a bus.
Perhaps, but a big bunch is still difficult to overtake on a relatively narrow country road without breaking that law about giving far more room. At least farm workers driving a tractor etc will try, as best they can, to pull in somewhere to let you pass if they are not going to be turning in within the next half a mile.
As a cyclist, I've often seem many others partaking being very selfish and inconsiderate by not pulling into a passing place or over at a farm gate, etc to let a vehicle pass. Being reasonable on both sides should be the norm, and was for a long time.
Now we get bad behviour on both sides, including drivers making dangerous maneuvres even after being behind a cyclist (or horse and rider) just for a few seconds.
|
|
|
|
<< Riding out in their lane is exactly what Highway Code Rule 72 tells them to do. They're no more difficult to pass than a car. >>
Exactly. I think I understand the reasoning here, but don't see why a bike demands the same road space as a car, which is several feet wider. Agreed that a cyclist is far more vulnerable and less predictable, but cyclists can't complain when sworn at by drivers who can't overtake because the Highway Code prevents them.
I used to cycle when it was more of a pleasure to do so. Not any more.
|
<< Riding out in their lane is exactly what Highway Code Rule 72 tells them to do. They're no more difficult to pass than a car. >>
Exactly. I think I understand the reasoning here, but don't see why a bike demands the same road space as a car, which is several feet wider. Agreed that a cyclist is far more vulnerable and less predictable, but cyclists can't complain when sworn at by drivers who can't overtake because the Highway Code prevents them.
That's nonsense on stilts. It's like saying car drivers cannot complain when sworn at by somebody who cannot overtake on solid lines because the Highway Code prevents them.
There's also a deficit in reasoning when you recognise the cyclist's vulnerability but not the need to mitigate for it.
|
|
<< That's nonsense on stilts. It's like saying car drivers cannot complain when sworn at by somebody who cannot overtake on solid lines because the Highway Code prevents them >>
A bit more nonsense on stilts then : I understand fully why a cyclist gets shouted at if he/she, acting on this instruction, deliberately rides near the centre of a two-lane A road, implicitly thumbing a nose at following traffic, who are presumably expected to allow another 4-5 feet when trying to pass. A common excuse is that the edges of the road are potholed or summat. But it seems provocative to presume the right to more road space than necessary.
I feel the same way about bikers who do likewise.
|
But it seems provocative to presume the right to more road space than necessary.
The Highway Code sets out the road space that is necessary.
Why is it OK to second guess that?
And yes, the edges of the carriageway are dangerous. Potholes, storm drains, slippery white or yellow lines, debris and rubbish and the fact that, close to the kerb, you're outside the visual scan of pedestrians, drivers close behind AND those joining from sideroads all combine.
|
|
<< Riding out in their lane is exactly what Highway Code Rule 72 tells them to do. They're no more difficult to pass than a car. >>
Exactly. I think I understand the reasoning here, but don't see why a bike demands the same road space as a car, which is several feet wider. Agreed that a cyclist is far more vulnerable and less predictable, but cyclists can't complain when sworn at by drivers who can't overtake because the Highway Code prevents them.
I think that's rather unfair. I do think that if and when a cyclist (or group) does not behave reasonably in either pulling over (where safe to do so) or backing off and waving a car or other road user by when appropriate is bad form at best and very selfish.
But then it's no different to a car, van or HGV driver expecting the proverbial Red Sea to part for them so they don't need to slow down. Cyclists and (especially) horse riders and pedestrians were using roads well before the advent of the motor car.
I used to cycle when it was more of a pleasure to do so. Not any more.
If everyone were reasonable and courteous when using the road, much of the problems wouldn't exist. For health reasons, I took cycling up again (admitedly fair weather only) a couple of years ago and, by and large, have not experienced any major issues, particularly when cyclist on country roads.
I suspect the main issue with car, van and HGV drivers is impatience because (like most poeple) time is money or they are very busy and cannot afford to be stuck behind a slower road user for long or very often. For that reason, I tend to avoid busy times of the day and larger urban areas / trunk routes unless I have to.
As a driver, I also avoid certain roads on particular days (normally Sundays) that are well-known cycle club routes to avoid hold-ups, or at least times of the day when they are likely to be out in force.
With a modicum of common sense and reasonablness, there shouldn't be much in the way of issues to overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
As usual most of the problems with cyclists here are in the minds of the drivers.
|
As usual most of the problems with cyclists here are in the minds of the drivers.
Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
60 years ago as a youngster, the green cross code was drummed into us, and no responsible parent would allow a child out on a bike without first having passed a cycling proficiency test.
It was an explicit recognition that pedestrian and cyclist safety was at least as much a personal priority as that of an unknown car driver.
Pedestrians now often give priority to their smartphones rather than traffic. Cyclists weave in and out of slow moving traffic, confident that car drivers will be alert to their erratic progress.
I have no desire to injure or aim anybody. Pedestrians and cyclists equally need to realise the legislation is not an immutable force field insulating them from injury. They should take responsibility for their own actions.
|
|
""They should take responsibility for their own actions."
In a perfect world yes. The reality is humans are selfish and pedestrians and bikes do not mix and it is usually the pedestrian who comes of worse
|
|
|
cyclists can't complain when sworn at by drivers who can't overtake because the Highway Code prevents them.
Q, Are cyclists responsible for motorists now being legally required to pass them as they would a car?
A, No
Q, Are cyclists responsible for the advice being given to them to cycle in the middle of the lane?
A, No
Q, Given motorists are now legally required to pass a cyclist as they would a car, does it make any difference whether the cyclist is in the middle of the lane or hugging the kerb?
A, No
Yet you feel it is entirely acceptable for cyclists to be verbally abused by motorists being held up?
|
|
|
|
As usual most of the problems with cyclists here are in the minds of the drivers.
Very true. I drive pretty much everyday and can't think I have ever had an issue with cyclists...yes, it's true some jump red lights but then so do some other drivers. And giving sapce for an overtake should not need to be in the Highway code - it should be done anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
