Highway Code could be changed to protect cyclists...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marko said:
Stockton. Some stretches of road have cycle lanes down the side of roads, which then cease and begin again on the pavement, some just stop altogether with no alternative but to carry on up the road. The council have made a right mess of it.

When I get the opportunity I use cycle paths, and when ever I do that you get f***ing pedestrians and dogs walking right down the middle of the pavement/cycle paths. They aren't too fat to fit in their lane but oh f***ing no, they walk right down the middle.

I think you'll find whether your in a car, on a cycle track, walking, you're always going to come up against some fucker that'll piss you off.
Click to expand...

Certainly. But walking is the default position and there's a spot fine for cycling on the pavement and it isn't enforced.
The fact or opinion that Stockton has made a mess of having cycle lanes next to pavements is nothing to do with that fact either, or that pedestrians walk on cycle lanes.
 
Last edited:


duff_man said:
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?
Click to expand...
Erm - breach of 'you should not' leaves you open to a charge of careless or inconsiderate driving and a cyclist of riding. Let me introduce you to sections 3 and 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;

3 Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.
If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.

29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

Many careless driving prosecutions have been brought for overtaking on the left (covered by a 'you should' under highway code rule 163).

Cyclists have also been prosecuted for riding more than two abreast on busy roads and when riding round bends (covered by 'you should' under highway code rule 66).

Although the undertaking was against the highway code the cyclist would normally get away with it and only be ticketed if there were other issues - if a cyclist was undertaking a row of cars on a road and damaged a car after they hit a grid and fell off then they would be guilty of an offence under section 29 of the road traffic act 1988 specifically because these were covered by advice (you should) in the highway code rule 163.

However not keeping both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear, not keeping both feet on the pedals or carrying something that affects your balance or could get tangled up with your wheels or chain could be ticketed without needing any additional factors - and all three of these are again 'only' covered by 'you should' under highway code rule 66.

You didn't know any of that?
 
Draig said:
Erm - breach of 'you should not' leaves you open to a charge of careless or inconsiderate driving and a cyclist of riding. Let me introduce you to sections 3 and 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;

3 Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.
If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.

29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

Many careless driving prosecutions have been brought for overtaking on the left (covered by a 'you should' under highway code rule 163).

Cyclists have also been prosecuted for riding more than two abreast on busy roads and when riding round bends (covered by 'you should' under highway code rule 66).

Although the undertaking was against the highway code the cyclist would normally get away with it and only be ticketed if there were other issues - if a cyclist was undertaking a row of cars on a road and damaged a car after they hit a grid and fell off then they would be guilty of an offence under section 29 of the road traffic act 1988 specifically because these were covered by advice (you should) in the highway code rule 163.

However not keeping both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear, not keeping both feet on the pedals or carrying something that affects your balance or could get tangled up with your wheels or chain could be ticketed without needing any additional factors - and all three of these are again 'only' covered by 'you should' under highway code rule 66.

You didn't know any of that?
Click to expand...

So it’s not directly lifted from legislation then is it, like I said. Raising your voice leaves you open to a charge of assault, but it’s very very unlikely to happen.
I don’t know of any cyclist who has been prosecuted or given a penalty notice for undertaking or riding two abreast.
 
ivanthereasonable said:
Good luck on finding a copper.
Pedestrians are a bigger hazard to cyclists than cyclists are to pedestrians. Its staggering the number of fuckwit pedestrians that just step out onto the road without even a glance, because they can't hear a vehicle.



Fish people disquised as cyclists mate.



The rule change is not for fuckwits like him. Its for cyclist. He sounds like an idiot, but also a rarity. You seem to be suggesting that all cyclists behave like this.
I've just been out for a ride and seen a white van man blast through a red just as i was crossing a road. Not starting a thread about it though because its commonplace.
Click to expand...
A lot of cyclists on my route to work do behave in a similar fashion to this helmet
 
steve30000 said:
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
Click to expand...

:lol: Why should cyclists have to pay insurance and tax?

Have you ever seen a bike write off a car?

Bikes don't pollute. Bikes don't do any damage to the roads.
 
scobbie said:
:lol: Why should cyclists have to pay insurance and tax?

Have you ever seen a bike write off a car?

Bikes don't pollute. Bikes don't do any damage to the roads.
Click to expand...
So if they crash into someone's car, its ok? They're using the road, so they should have to pay like the rest of us.
 
duff_man said:
So it’s not directly lifted from legislation then is it, like I said. Raising your voice leaves you open to a charge of assault, but it’s very very unlikely to happen.
I don’t know of any cyclist who has been prosecuted or given a penalty notice for undertaking or riding two abreast.
Click to expand...

Well you're not likely to get ticketed for riding two abreast (unless it is in a peloton) &/or causing a big tailback which is called in to the police by irate motorists or suffers the huge misfortune of having a police car in such a tailback.

Riding more than two abreast would be more likely to get ticketed for causing a tailback (though in both cases God knows what you'd have to do to actually get sent before a magistrate for this!).

I do wonder if both/all of those riding two+ abreast &/or in a peloton would get ticketed or if the cyclist nearest the kerb would be deemed innocent! Mind, riding solo could still get you ticketed for causing a big tailback of traffic owing to the highway code advice to pull over when you can to let the traffic past (though I admit this is lottery-winning odds). Can you imagine the tailback that could be caused by a single cyclist riding up a long, steep incline on a single carriageway road in Mid-Wales that also happens to be a major holiday route (say the Horseshoe pass a LLangollen or the climb out of Ruthin on tha A494? Coaches and caravans unable to pass for over a mile because of a single cyclist going up hill and lots of traffic from the other direction! Yes, I have seen and experienced both - though I doubt the cyclists involved were pulled over by the police.

Similarly with overtaking on the left - there would either have to be some other issue resultant from this undertaking to get you ticketed or say struggling to get past a car much closer to the kerb than the other vehicles (say by leaning over and having to put your foot on the pavement to balance) and a policeman just happens to be watching close by.

That loads get away with it doesn't mean that nobody will ever be ticketed though, but I agree with you saying it is unlikely.

Generally the police are interested in addressing the wider community of cyclists and would just issue warnings to cycling clubs, etc, to get it into the press and thereby reach the social cycling community too - Cycling Weekly reported warnings issued to cycling clubs by Surrey Police back in Sept 2011, but did also say nobody had been prosecuted; see Surrey Police go after inconsiderate cyclists - Cycling Weekly

This does show that the more cyclists in an area that do ride inconsiderately and the more this gets to the attention of local and community councilors then the more likely the police are to take action against the cyclists.
 
PinzaC55 said:
The police could start enforcing the spot fine for cyclists cycling on the pavement. That would help protect pedestrians from cyclists.
Click to expand...

But instead they split the pavement in two and put cyclists on the pavement (cycle lands like on Wearmouth Bridge) to protect cyclists against the loons in cars but putting the lives of pedestrians at risk as they wander along with their noses embeded in their phones.

I drive, cycle and walk so see it from all perspectives.....There are some arseholes on bikes but similarly the same can be said of car drivers and pedestrians.

The difference for me is that when a driver is an arsehole a cyclist or pedestrian dies....When a cyclist is an arsehole then a car gets scratched or a pedestrian is either hurt or even killed. When a pedestrian is an arsehole then they get hurt by car or bike.

In short, when you are wrapped up safe in a massive metal box, whether we like it as drivers or not then those more vulnerable like cyclists and pedestrians need some protection, even if its only from themselves. Similarly pedestrians should not be sharing path space with cyclists often to protect them from their own stupidity and negligence.

I know its a really radical idea but why not have pavements, roads and cycling lanes.....Saw a brilliant cycling lane in Barcelona, it was down the middle of the road and was kerbed. That way the cyclists were not pushed into the kerb on the road side but neither could they jump on the pavement etc when the lights were on red....It is an excellent system and one that I think should be used here.

Logon or register to see this image


steve30000 said:
So if they crash into someone's car, its ok? They're using the road, so they should have to pay like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Many do, I have insurance for my bikes and 3rd party cover via a company called pedalsure, only costs around £13 a month and covers for thefts/damage but also for accidents I maybe responsible for.
 
Last edited:
steve30000 said:
So if they crash into someone's car, its ok? They're using the road, so they should have to pay like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

If it's the cyclists fault he should have to pay for the damage. But ridiculous suggesting they should have insurance. Have you ever heard of a bike doing serious damage to a car?

Drivers of low emission cars don't pay road tax. What kind of car do you drive? Would you be happy to pay the same road tax as a lorry?
 
scobbie said:
If it's the cyclists fault he should have to pay for the damage. But ridiculous suggesting they should have insurance. Have you ever heard of a bike doing serious damage to a car?

Drivers of low emission cars don't pay road tax. What kind of car do you drive? Would you be happy to pay the same road tax as a lorry?
Click to expand...

No such thing as road tax. ;)
 
The Muffin Man said:
But instead they split the pavement in two and put cyclists on the pavement (cycle lands like on Wearmouth Bridge) to protect cyclists against the loons in cars but putting the lives of pedestrians at risk as they wander along with their noses embeded in their phones.

I drive, cycle and walk so see it from all perspectives.....There are some arseholes on bikes but similarly the same can be said of car drivers and pedestrians.

The difference for me is that when a driver is an arsehole a cyclist or pedestrian dies....When a cyclist is an arsehole then a car gets scratched or a pedestrian is either hurt or even killed. When a pedestrian is an arsehole then they get hurt by car or bike.

In short, when you are wrapped up safe in a massive metal box, whether we like it as drivers or not then those more vulnerable like cyclists and pedestrians need some protection, even if its only from themselves. Similarly pedestrians should not be sharing path space with cyclists often to protect them from their own stupidity and negligence.

I know its a really radical idea but why not have pavements, roads and cycling lanes.....Saw a brilliant cycling lane in Barcelona, it was down the middle of the road and was kerbed. That way the cyclists were not pushed into the kerb on the road side but neither could they jump on the pavement etc when the lights were on red....It is an excellent system and one that I think should be used here.

Logon or register to see this image




Many do, I have insurance for my bikes and 3rd party cover via a company called pedalsure, only costs around £13 a month and covers for thefts/damage but also for accidents I maybe responsible for.
Click to expand...
That picture looks good. A lot of the on pavement cycle paths stop every 200 yards because of junctions. If you are on the road, you can go for miles at speed. If you are on a pavement with a white line painted down, you rarely get above 5 mph because you are stopping all the time.
 
DaveH said:
That picture looks good. A lot of the on pavement cycle paths stop every 200 yards because of junctions. If you are on the road, you can go for miles at speed. If you are on a pavement with a white line painted down, you rarely get above 5 mph because you are stopping all the time.
Click to expand...

Meh. Tracks down they middle of the road aren't great. If I want to stop, check out a shop, post something, get to work etc. I've got to cycle to the next junction, cross and come back on myself on foot. It's not good design and generally done to ensure it has zero impact on motor traffic flow.

Better than a painted line of course. Guess it's about urban context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top