Highway Code could be changed to protect cyclists...

[Deleted member 27423]

More people are injured by cows each year than cyclists. Should start fining cows.

Especially those on the way to the mooovies( i kna!....couldnt resist as these threads always turn into anti cycle v anti car..knackers on both sides fortunately most people are ok and dont want to kill one another)

 

[Deleted member 559]

Especially those on the way to the mooovies( i kna!....couldnt resist as these threads always turn into anti cycle v anti car..knackers on both sides fortunately most people are ok and dont want to kill one another)

Speak for yourself.

 

[cosmicchris00]

Highway Code to promote 'Dutch reach' to protect cyclists

Also being mooted that cyclists will get priority over cars at junctions.

Interesting to see that pedestrian fatalities rose 5% in 2017. As both a cyclist and a driver that's easy to see why - idiots walking straight out gawping at their phones or oblivious to the outside world because of headphones, or of course the presumption that bicycle or car has a stopping distance of zero.

I started seeing idiots in Manchester a few years ago walking across busy roads and stopping in the middle (no central reservation).

It seems to be catching on elsewhere now.

Are these people brainless or do they have so little going for them that they just don't care if they live or die?

 

[jayjaysafc]

Don’t mind a Dutch Reach

 

[Morse]

why wouldn't you look before opening a door?

For a cyclist squeezing down the inside of your car when you’ve pulled over? Why on earth would you do that? Where’s the cyclist’s responsibility in all of this?
I’d look to make sure I wasn’t swinging the door into a pedestrian as the door swings over part of the pavement. A cyclist riding irresponsibly? No, they need to be responsible for themselves.

The driver’s door opening into the road is an entirely different matter, obviously.

If I’d parked next to a cycle path, then yes, my duty would be to ensure I was neither obstructing a cyclist, nor opening the door into their path. I don’t park in cycle paths so the issue never arises.

 

[ToneSAFC73]

Do cyclists have to pay for insurance and tax?
Do they get points for violating traffic laws?

They want to share the same road space, but are not subject to the same laws or have to pay the same amount in monetary value.

You can understand why, regardless of your flippant response

Make the fuckers do some kind of theory test as well if they haven't already. They should 100% pay insurance.

 

[Grammar Police]

95% of road users wouldn't know what the Highway Code was if it fell out of a tree and landed on their head.

Will this turn into another discussion where obese people who cannot ride bikes slag off cyclists and blow it all out of proportion.

Highly likely.

I am not obese but when I see two cyclists riding side by side chatting to each other and holding up the traffic I like to wind the window down and give them both barrels.

They deserve knocking off, the "look at me I have a racer and a flourescent jacket so don't overtake me" wankers.

 

[Morse]

How far away from the kerb are you when you pull over? You sound like a shit driver if there is room to get a bike down the inside.

Deary me, how to miss the point! Did you actually read the article?!

It mentions bikes passing cars on the inside as passengers are getting out, and riding into doors.
I’m asking why on Earth a passenger would be expected to take responsibility for a cyclist trying to squeeze past a car on the inside. In my experience it would be unnecessary, implying I actually don’t leave too much room! It has never, ever been an issue for me.

I never once mentioned anything about how far I personally park from the kerb, ffs! You’re making stuff up.

I’ve been driving 32 years and never had so much as a speeding fine* or a parking fine, despite driving a Golf GTi for the last 6 or 7 years. Approx 27 years no claims bonus. My driving seems perfectly competent.

*Cos your lot can’t ever catch me.

 

[walesie]

For a cyclist squeezing down the inside of your car when you’ve pulled over? Why on earth would you do that? Where’s the cyclist’s responsibility in all of this?
I’d look to make sure I wasn’t swinging the door into a pedestrian as the door swings over part of the pavement. A cyclist riding irresponsibly? No, they need to be responsible for themselves.

The driver’s door opening into the road is an entirely different matter, obviously.

If I’d parked next to a cycle path, then yes, my duty would be to ensure I was neither obstructing a cyclist, nor opening the door into their path. I don’t park in cycle paths so the issue never arises.

so you'd look for a pedestrian but not cyclist? do your eyes discriminate between the 2? you look, see if theres anything coming, then open a door. what's the problem?

 

[Deleted User 2893]

Deary me, how to miss the point! Did you actually read the article?!

It mentions bikes passing cars on the inside as passengers are getting out, and riding into doors.
I’m asking why on Earth a passenger would be expected to take responsibility for a cyclist trying to squeeze past a car on the inside. In my experience it would be unnecessary, implying I actually don’t leave too much room! It has never, ever been an issue for me.

I never once mentioned anything about how far I personally park from the kerb, ffs! You’re making stuff up.

I’ve been driving 32 years and never had so much as a speeding fine* or a parking fine, despite driving a Golf GTi for the last 6 or 7 years. Approx 27 years no claims bonus. My driving seems perfectly competent.

*Cos your lot can’t ever catch me.

I don’t think you read it. It makes no mention of cyclists passing on the inside, which incidentally cyclists can legally do in several circumstances. You appear to be another know it all car driver who has the opinion that cyclists are to blame for everything.

 

[Deleted member 15970]

I don’t think you read it. It makes no mention of cyclists passing on the inside, which incidentally cyclists can legally do in several circumstances. You appear to be another know it all car driver who has the opinion that cyclists are to blame for everything.

Drivers too can legally overtake on the left in several circumstances. Cyclists think they can overtake on the left on a road whenever traffic is held up but this isn't the case.

Highway Code; Rules for cyclists (Rules 59 to 82) - Rules for cyclists, including an overview, road junctions, roundabouts and crossing the road.

Rule 67 You Should ...

• take care when overtaking (see Rules 162 to 169).

Rule 163 Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should ...

• only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so

Obviously rule 163 doesn't apply to cyclists where there is a cycle path on the edge of the carriageway or on the pathway, but it does apply to cyclists riding on the open road (unless queuing on the inside of two lanes of traffic and the outer lane is moving more slowly than the inside lane).

 

[Kevsgreat]

Do cyclists have to pay for insurance and tax?
Do they get points for violating traffic laws?

They want to share the same road space, but are not subject to the same laws or have to pay the same amount in monetary value.

You can understand why, regardless of your flippant response

They don't want to share the same road space. They do share the same road space.

Drivers of some cars don't pay any tax. Does that make them less entitled to be on the road than you?

 

[Deleted User 2893]

Drivers too can legally overtake on the left in several circumstances. Cyclists think they can overtake on the left on a road whenever traffic is held up but this isn't the case.

Highway Code; Rules for cyclists (Rules 59 to 82) - Rules for cyclists, including an overview, road junctions, roundabouts and crossing the road.

Rule 67 You Should ...

• take care when overtaking (see Rules 162 to 169).

Rule 163 Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should ...

• only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so

Obviously rule 163 doesn't apply to cyclists where there is a cycle path on the edge of the carriageway or on the pathway, but it does apply to cyclists riding on the open road (unless queuing on the inside of two lanes of traffic and the outer lane is moving more slowly than the inside lane).

Only things in the highway code that begin ‘you must’ or ‘you must not’ are actually backed by legislation, the rest are guidelines. You did know that though didn’t you?

 

[Morse]

I don’t think you read it. It makes no mention of cyclists passing on the inside, which incidentally cyclists can legally do in several circumstances. You appear to be another know it all car driver who has the opinion that cyclists are to blame for everything.

Jesus wept, man! Watch the f***ing video! The Transport Secretary knocks a cyclist off his bike. It’s the main feature of the article. The cyclist squeezed between the car and kerb, no reasonable cyclist would’ve attempted that. They want motorists to give them loads of passing space, but think it’s fine to squeeze past cars, and complain when they are in contact with the car. Where is their responsibility in all of this?

I don’t think cyclists are to blame for everything, where have I said that? I happen to think the particular issue I mentioned is not the motorist’s fault. If a cyclist wishes to undertake an unnecessarily risky manoeuvre, they must be vigilant as to the potential dangers.

You’ve waded in straight away with ad hominem in your very first reply and continued with your second. You’re just looking for an immature slanging match, not a discussion. Do one, I’m not interested.

so you'd look for a pedestrian but not cyclist? do your eyes discriminate between the 2? you look, see if theres anything coming, then open a door. what's the problem?

I’d look out expecting a pedestrian on a pavement, yes. I’d be surprised to see a cyclist passing in the gutter or on the pavement, but apparently it happens and I’d wait until they pass. Pedestrians walk at a couple of mph, cyclists travel several times that speed and could be a couple of cars back or more when I’m opening the door, hence completely out of field of vision. Big difference. I’m not going to wind my window down and stick my head out to see if a cyclist is ten yards back doing 15mph.

The point is that people in cars are, according to the article, potentially going to be expected to look out for cyclist when opening doors. Now, opening offside doors is a no brainer, you check for traffic, including cyclists.

The video of the transport secretary has been linked in the article, hence my raising this specific subject. He opens his door on the passenger side, a cyclist smashes into it. I’m saying that in cases like that, it’s unreasonable to put the burden of responsibility onto the passenger opening the door to look out for a cyclist who opts to squeeze between kerb and parked car.

While cyclists must be protected from dangerous drivers, they have to take some responsibility for their own safety. If they perform risky manoeuvres, they put themselves at risk. If they are put into a mindset that motorists will have to look out for foolish manoeuvres, I don’t feel that is conducive to safe riding practices.

 

[Smiler]

Jesus wept, man! Watch the f***ing video! The Transport Secretary knocks a cyclist off his bike. It’s the main feature of the article. The cyclist squeezed between the car and kerb, no reasonable cyclist would’ve attempted that. They want motorists to give them loads of passing space, but think it’s fine to squeeze past cars, and complain when they are in contact with the car. Where is their responsibility in all of this?

I don’t think cyclists are to blame for everything, where have I said that? I happen to think the particular issue I mentioned is not the motorist’s fault. If a cyclist wishes to undertake an unnecessarily risky manoeuvre, they must be vigilant as to the potential dangers.

You’ve waded in straight away with ad hominem in your very first reply and continued with your second. You’re just looking for an immature slanging match, not a discussion. Do one, I’m not interested.



I’d look out expecting a pedestrian on a pavement, yes. I’d be surprised to see a cyclist passing in the gutter or on the pavement, but apparently it happens and I’d wait until they pass. Pedestrians walk at a couple of mph, cyclists travel several times that speed and could be a couple of cars back or more when I’m opening the door, hence completely out of field of vision. Big difference. I’m not going to wind my window down and stick my head out to see if a cyclist is ten yards back doing 15mph.

The point is that people in cars are, according to the article, potentially going to be expected to look out for cyclist when opening doors. Now, opening offside doors is a no brainer, you check for traffic, including cyclists.

The video of the transport secretary has been linked in the article, hence my raising this specific subject. He opens his door on the passenger side, a cyclist smashes into it. I’m saying that in cases like that, it’s unreasonable to put the burden of responsibility onto the passenger opening the door to look out for a cyclist who opts to squeeze between kerb and parked car.

While cyclists must be protected from dangerous drivers, they have to take some responsibility for their own safety. If they perform risky manoeuvres, they put themselves at risk. If they are put into a mindset that motorists will have to look out for foolish manoeuvres, I don’t feel that is conducive to safe riding practices.

That car was about 3 foot away from the kerb, it didn't remotely look like it had pulled in to let a passenger out, if the car had pulled in properly this wouldn't have happened

 

[Jack Wolforskin]

95% of road users wouldn't know what the Highway Code was if it fell out of a tree and landed on their head.


I am not obese but when I see two cyclists riding side by side chatting to each other and holding up the traffic I like to wind the window down and give them both barrels.

They deserve knocking off, the "look at me I have a racer and a flourescent jacket so don't overtake me" wankers.

 

[Morse]

That car was about 3 foot away from the kerb, it didn't remotely look like it had pulled in to let a passenger out, if the car had pulled in properly this wouldn't have happened

Yes, I agree it was too far from the kerb. The point remains, though. I’m looking at the bigger picture, the issue of that collision simply made me wonder why a passenger should be responsible for a cyclist flying past in the gutter close to a ‘parked’ car in other cases. It’s almost encouraging cyclists to ride too close to cars. As an aside, If the cyclist takes paint or a mirror off a car when passing too close, is he or she going to cough up for repairs, or is the motorist expected to take the hit? Is the motorist going to be assumed to be at fault? I can guess the answer.

If I were on my bike, yes I own bikes - Kona Lanai’i and a Mongoose (both very dusty and flat tyred now...), and I saw a car pull towards the kerb and stop, I wouldn’t be inclined to attempt to pass it on the inside, my common sense would tell me that he may be dropping someone off who’s about to open the door. At the very least you’d surely pass with great caution.

 

[steve30000]

They don't want to share the same road space. They do share the same road space.

Drivers of some cars don't pay any tax. Does that make them less entitled to be on the road than you?

Everyone who wants to use the road should be made to pay tax and insurance.

Its only fair imo.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

Everyone who wants to use the road should be made to pay tax and insurance.

Its only fair imo.

Does the paying tax part of your plan include cars, vans, lorries etc?

 

[James]

Yes, I agree it was too far from the kerb. The point remains, though. I’m looking at the bigger picture, the issue of that collision simply made me wonder why a passenger should be responsible for a cyclist flying past in the gutter close to a ‘parked’ car in other cases. It’s almost encouraging cyclists to ride too close to cars. As an aside, If the cyclist takes paint or a mirror off a car when passing too close, is he or she going to cough up for repairs, or is the motorist expected to take the hit? Is the motorist going to be assumed to be at fault? I can guess the answer.

If I were on my bike, yes I own bikes - Kona Lanai’i and a Mongoose (both very dusty and flat tyred now...), and I saw a car pull towards the kerb and stop, I wouldn’t be inclined to attempt to pass it on the inside, my common sense would tell me that he may be dropping someone off who’s about to open the door. At the very least you’d surely pass with great caution.

If you ever cycled you'd realise how stupid that would be. You'd never get anywhere. Filtering through traffic is what you do and it's perfectly legal to do so. No one is getting doored by cars pulling over by the kerb and stopping, simply because you cannot get down the inside of a vehicle that has done that without using your left leg to push the bike.

Should a passenger look before they open the door? Yes of course they bloody well should, especially when jumping out at traffic lights which happens quite often. Ignorance isn't an excuse.

Unfortunately this is more tinkering around the edges. The highway code tells you not to break speed limits yet 80%+ of drivers do that in 20mph zones. Unless it's enforced by the police (which it won't be because they're skint) then it's effectively pointless.