FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Rule 163 of the highway code
Rule 163 of the highway code
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Its not cyclists that bother me ... as long as they have lights and bright clothing ... its motor bikes that scare me ... as they come out of nowhere and try and overtake on the right .... I find them far more dangerous ....." . . . you'll find it more frightening if they try to overtake you on the left? 
Car drivers must accept that in today's traffic conditions only a biker can "make progress".  | |||
| |||
"A couple of days ago there was a thread on here regarding a motorist swerving into a cyclist, I find this behaviour despicable by the driver. But further into the thread I noticed rule 163 being quoted so being the inquisitive guy I am I read up on it and yes the OP of the thread was spot on with what was said. Then I carried on reading the Highway Code as was stated by the poster. Interestingly the poster mentioned that as a cyclist why should they move over out of people's way I then noticed rule number 169 which clearly states Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Do people feel that this rule applies to cyclists as well as any other vehicle or does this only include larger vehicles?" Obviously not as it wouldn't to a horse and rider. Mr W | |||
| |||
"A cyclist is by law allowed to ride in the middle of the lane within urban area's and should be treated and negotiated like a small car. This means overtaking in the on coming carriageway. If cyclist is on a faster road they should keep to the left but not in the gutter which allows for safer overtaking. Cyclists should be anticipated for there actions such as junctions etc. It helps when they look and signal too to help motorists. " Some of what you are saying is true but some contradicts rule 168. As a driver if someone wants to overtake me which happens and I'm no driving miss daisy I'll try move over to allow them to pass. As someone commented earlier if all road users respected each other then many troubles wouldn't happen. As I drive around london a lot you notice how bad drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists can be its bloody frightening. | |||
"A cyclist is by law allowed to ride in the middle of the lane within urban area's and should be treated and negotiated like a small car. This means overtaking in the on coming carriageway. If cyclist is on a faster road they should keep to the left but not in the gutter which allows for safer overtaking. Cyclists should be anticipated for there actions such as junctions etc. It helps when they look and signal too to help motorists. Some of what you are saying is true but some contradicts rule 168. As a driver if someone wants to overtake me which happens and I'm no driving miss daisy I'll try move over to allow them to pass. As someone commented earlier if all road users respected each other then many troubles wouldn't happen. As I drive around london a lot you notice how bad drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists can be its bloody frightening. " I almost got hit by a cyclist in London who was running a red light. Got into an argument with him. Apparently he didn't feel that he had to stop for the light. 
-Courtney | |||
"A couple of days ago there was a thread on here regarding a motorist swerving into a cyclist, I find this behaviour despicable by the driver. But further into the thread I noticed rule 163 being quoted so being the inquisitive guy I am I read up on it and yes the OP of the thread was spot on with what was said. Then I carried on reading the Highway Code as was stated by the poster. Interestingly the poster mentioned that as a cyclist why should they move over out of people's way I then noticed rule number 169 which clearly states Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Do people feel that this rule applies to cyclists as well as any other vehicle or does this only include larger vehicles?" On my commute there are a couple of hills with traffic calming in the centre of the road meaning that cars can't overtake and I'm doing less than 15mph. I pretty much always pull over to allow cars to pass afterwards if thre is a build up. Similarly on narrower roads I'm always conscious of cars behind me on hills. I'd guess about 80% of cars that do get stuck behind me for a time do acknowledge the fact you've gone out of your way to let them pass, it;s give and take, we all have to share the roads. If a can drive slowly behind me for 20 or 30 seconds rather than squeeze past me I'm happy enough to pull over briefly so passing is easier. | |||
"Id like to see cyclist stopping at red lights to start with
"I'd like to see motorists stop at them (certainly an issue in London) and pedestrians understand how pedestrian crossings work. It's easy to sterotype bad behaviour | |||
"Id like to see cyclist stopping at red lights to start with
I'd like to see motorists stop at them (certainly an issue in London) and pedestrians understand how pedestrian crossings work.
It's easy to sterotype bad behaviour"This is true, I know as a motorist I've cut an amber light and nearly got cut out. I've never knowingly cut a red light. And I've seen plenty of cyclists stop at lights but I've also seen both motorists and cyclists cut them, I've heard excuses from cyclists saying it's hard to get started again so that's why I go through, it's their life they put on the line, but spare a thought for the motorist who has that on their conscience for the rest of their life. I also witnessed many a pedestrian walk out in front of a cyclist and be the cause of an accident, it's not one demographic who's to blame on the roads all are as bad as each other. | |||
"Id like to see cyclist stopping at red lights to start with
I'd like to see motorists stop at them (certainly an issue in London) and pedestrians understand how pedestrian crossings work.
It's easy to sterotype bad behaviour
This is true, I know as a motorist I've cut an amber light and nearly got cut out. I've never knowingly cut a red light. And I've seen plenty of cyclists stop at lights but I've also seen both motorists and cyclists cut them, I've heard excuses from cyclists saying it's hard to get started again so that's why I go through, it's their life they put on the line, but spare a thought for the motorist who has that on their conscience for the rest of their life.
I also witnessed many a pedestrian walk out in front of a cyclist and be the cause of an accident, it's not one demographic who's to blame on the roads all are as bad as each other.
"Looking at it from a London-centric viewpoint the issue is simply that the city is too crowded. The pavemnts, the tube, the buses, the roads are all full to bursting point. And people do things to compensate for that which annoys everyone else and people look for scapegoats too suit their perspective and agenda. | |||
| |||
"Id like to see cyclist stopping at red lights to start with
I'd like to see motorists stop at them (certainly an issue in London) and pedestrians understand how pedestrian crossings work.
It's easy to sterotype bad behaviour
This is true, I know as a motorist I've cut an amber light and nearly got cut out. I've never knowingly cut a red light. And I've seen plenty of cyclists stop at lights but I've also seen both motorists and cyclists cut them, I've heard excuses from cyclists saying it's hard to get started again so that's why I go through, it's their life they put on the line, but spare a thought for the motorist who has that on their conscience for the rest of their life.
I also witnessed many a pedestrian walk out in front of a cyclist and be the cause of an accident, it's not one demographic who's to blame on the roads all are as bad as each other.
Looking at it from a London-centric viewpoint the issue is simply that the city is too crowded. The pavemnts, the tube, the buses, the roads are all full to bursting point. And people do things to compensate for that which annoys everyone else and people look for scapegoats too suit their perspective and agenda. "I agree with that, but on the outskirts of london it's still an issue where the roads & pavements are not so bad, society it's self is always rushing around. On the point of overtaking I always find it funny when someone overtakes you dangerously then end up stuck behind someone and I go sailing past them. Or like this morning where a Audi driver pulled accross a roundabout then proceeded in taking a short cut only to end up behind us in the end!! | |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator." I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! | |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong!" Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! | |||
| |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement!" Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, | |||
" Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, " Exactly imagine the outcry if a motorist or motorcyclist done the same? I'm sure you'd change your mind if you hit someone and they sued you for a lot of money! | |||
" Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, Exactly imagine the outcry if a motorist or motorcyclist done the same? I'm sure you'd change your mind if you hit someone and they sued you for a lot of money!" Completely, it astound me the things some people do on a bike, | |||
" Completely, it astound me the things some people do on a bike, " Trouble is they can, the police don't want to do anything about it. | |||
| |||
"A couple of days ago there was a thread on here regarding a motorist swerving into a cyclist, I find this behaviour despicable by the driver. But further into the thread I noticed rule 163 being quoted so being the inquisitive guy I am I read up on it and yes the OP of the thread was spot on with what was said. Then I carried on reading the Highway Code as was stated by the poster. Interestingly the poster mentioned that as a cyclist why should they move over out of people's way I then noticed rule number 169 which clearly states Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Do people feel that this rule applies to cyclists as well as any other vehicle or does this only include larger vehicles?" especially cyclists  | |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, " Use your common sense.... If there's pedestrians on the path then you don't cycle in the first place!  | |||
| |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, Use your common sense.... If there's pedestrians on the path then you don't cycle in the first place! "Ok so what happens when you see a pedestrian but the road is busy do you get off the bike or get on the road? Common sense would tell me to stick to the road regardless the bike is the a vehicle after all. | |||
"Cyclists shouldn't be even be sharing the same road space as motor vehicles. End of. The whole policy is fundamentally flawed. Cycle areas need to be properly segregated well away from moving traffic, thus eliminating ALL potential risk of any contact/collision. As long as this government continue with their obsession in trying to mix the two, accidents and fatalities will continue to happen. " there's logic in that theory however there isn't always room for two segregated areas. | |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, Use your common sense.... If there's pedestrians on the path then you don't cycle in the first place! "If your using your common sense you wouldn't be on the path in the first place, On a flat bit of road I can be doing upwards of 20mph and a lot of people are faster than me, at that speed sometimes pedestrians come out of nowhere, Stick to the road and stick to primary position to keep everyone safe | |||
"Cyclists shouldn't be even be sharing the same road space as motor vehicles. End of. The whole policy is fundamentally flawed. Cycle areas need to be properly segregated well away from moving traffic, thus eliminating ALL potential risk of any contact/collision. As long as this government continue with their obsession in trying to mix the two, accidents and fatalities will continue to happen. there's logic in that theory however there isn't always room for two segregated areas. " There is absolutely no logic in that statement what so ever, cyclist are allowed on the road has much has cars, What about horses should they be band from the roads too? Because they take up much more room and are slowly than most cyclist | |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, Use your common sense.... If there's pedestrians on the path then you don't cycle in the first place!
If your using your common sense you wouldn't be on the path in the first place,
On a flat bit of road I can be doing upwards of 20mph and a lot of people are faster than me, at that speed sometimes pedestrians come out of nowhere,
Stick to the road and stick to primary position to keep everyone safe"Spot on. I know how I ride and ride that way without exception everyday and its served me very well touch wood for the last nearly thirty years. I ride at the side of the Road but always take the centre of the lane approaching roundabouts, junctions and bollards etc so that I wont be squeezed into high kerbs etc. Only yesterday morning a driver tried to come round me with less than ten yards to go as I was approaching a mini roundabout and signalling my intention to turn right. Obviously there's no way I can let that happen and have someone come round my right so she came to a halt in front on the raised kerb in front of the little island. I ride that junction seven days a week and can guarantee somebody will attempt a last minute overtake every now and then. | |||
| |||
"Cyclists shouldn't be even be sharing the same road space as motor vehicles. End of. The whole policy is fundamentally flawed. Cycle areas need to be properly segregated well away from moving traffic, thus eliminating ALL potential risk of any contact/collision. As long as this government continue with their obsession in trying to mix the two, accidents and fatalities will continue to happen. there's logic in that theory however there isn't always room for two segregated areas. There is absolutely no logic in that statement what so ever, cyclist are allowed on the road has much has cars, What about horses should they be band from the roads too? Because they take up much more room and are slowly than most cyclist" I mean the logic that segregated traffic could eliminate accidents, but the simple truth it wouldn't work. Look at cycle paths on pavements I know I've walked along one without thinking, no wonder people don't want to use them. I prefer to myself, what has always bugged me with cycle lanes is people are allowed to park on them made it horrendously dangerous getting around them going along Chiswick high road. | |||
"It would apply to all road users but you can also assume that cyclists will not generally cause as much obstruction etc, compared to larger road vehicles. Also, on the point of road use, danger and the respect of other road users, might I point out - The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (1989 No. 1796 PART III Regulation 27) No person shall use...on a road any vehicle on which any lamp, hazard warning signal device or warning beacon of a type...is used in a manner specified in that item: 2 Front fog lamp (a)Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road. (b)Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility. 3 Rear fog lamp (a)Used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to the driver of a following vehicle. (b)Used so as to be lit at any time other than in conditions of seriously reduced visibility I've been dazzled a lot over the last day, due to drivers having their fog lights on, when there's either no fog, or you could still see for a couple of miles ahead." Thank you I have been moaning about that same thing since yesterday, so many people (age/sex/race don't matter which) use fog lights inappropriately it bugs the hell out of me. Driving on the m40 yesterday so many don't use them when needed, but soon as a clear night bang they switch them on! | |||
| |||
"Cycle lanes are pointless and dangerous, there is one round here that just stops and leaves you having to bunny hop off the kerb in to traffic on a 50mph duel carriage way, most cycle lanes are dangerous and no help what so ever" That's mainly because local councils don't have the money and even if they did they wouldn't bother | |||
"Cycle lanes are pointless and dangerous, there is one round here that just stops and leaves you having to bunny hop off the kerb in to traffic on a 50mph duel carriage way, most cycle lanes are dangerous and no help what so ever That's mainly because local councils don't have the money and even if they did they wouldn't bother" Or an actually clue about cycling | |||
"Cyclists shouldn't be even be sharing the same road space as motor vehicles. End of. The whole policy is fundamentally flawed. Cycle areas need to be properly segregated well away from moving traffic, thus eliminating ALL potential risk of any contact/collision. As long as this government continue with their obsession in trying to mix the two, accidents and fatalities will continue to happen. " They have been put on some pathways in my area. On more than one occasion I've had to drag my grandson away from the cycle path because of cyclists being close to the path we are walking along. Having cyclists close to pedestrians is no safer than having cyclists in the road. At least on the roads they are capable of going at speeds. On a path way,where children can be walking it's easy for one of them to clip someone as they ride past at speed. If you want consideration from drivers you should show consideration to pedestrians. I always give plenty of space and time to cyclists,shame they don't always do the same to me. | |||
"Cyclists shouldn't be even be sharing the same road space as motor vehicles. End of. The whole policy is fundamentally flawed. Cycle areas need to be properly segregated well away from moving traffic, thus eliminating ALL potential risk of any contact/collision. As long as this government continue with their obsession in trying to mix the two, accidents and fatalities will continue to happen. there's logic in that theory however there isn't always room for two segregated areas. " I know. So, your solution is easy. You don't put one where there isn't room. | |||
"Cyclists shouldn't be even be sharing the same road space as motor vehicles. End of. The whole policy is fundamentally flawed. Cycle areas need to be properly segregated well away from moving traffic, thus eliminating ALL potential risk of any contact/collision. As long as this government continue with their obsession in trying to mix the two, accidents and fatalities will continue to happen. They have been put on some pathways in my area. On more than one occasion I've had to drag my grandson away from the cycle path because of cyclists being close to the path we are walking along. Having cyclists close to pedestrians is no safer than having cyclists in the road. At least on the roads they are capable of going at speeds. On a path way,where children can be walking it's easy for one of them to clip someone as they ride past at speed. If you want consideration from drivers you should show consideration to pedestrians. I always give plenty of space and time to cyclists,shame they don't always do the same to me. " Where did I mention anything about cyclists being close to pedestrians? | |||
| |||
| |||
"In Bristol which the council are really trying hard to push as the "cycling city" they are currently spending a fortune on cycle lanes. I won't claim to be an expert but I just can't see the logic in the placement of some of them and it seems like their deliberately trying to make the traffic congestion worse in order to justify their plans. They put the bigger and wider lanes in the streets and areas with the lesser amounts of cyclists using them possibly because there's most room to do so and as an extra benefit they get to remove a traffic lane such as in Hartcliffe way. Then if only "more people cycled and less drove cars we wouldnt have so much traffic congestion". They've just removed a lane of traffic along the water by temple meads to install a cycle lane where you could cycle 3 or 4 abreast but thats never been a street heavily used by cyclists compared to the main route through the temple meads area. I guess its more about the seen to be doing something rather than how effective and useful it really is." It tends to be a method of making people use other forms of transport. Oxford St in London is now the most toxic street in the world due to traffic fumes. Having said that, around here cycle provision is basically sending a team of painters out with a bucket of white paint & the instruction to randomly paint dotted lines down the side of the road for a hundred metres. Pretty much all of it is so dangerous that I (& many others) refuse to use it. Lanes that disappear at pinch points, randomly direct you onto the footway then off again into unsuspecting traffic & because they are dotted lines they are really creating 'parking lanes' (yes, ive heard a driver claiming they are exactly that even though there was a cycle image right in front of his car) that instantly become unusable as soon as a car parks in it. | |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, Use your common sense.... If there's pedestrians on the path then you don't cycle in the first place!
If your using your common sense you wouldn't be on the path in the first place,
On a flat bit of road I can be doing upwards of 20mph and a lot of people are faster than me, at that speed sometimes pedestrians come out of nowhere,
Stick to the road and stick to primary position to keep everyone safe"Try living in London where people do both. Sometimes its for safety sometimes it isn't! You do what's appropriate according to conditions and where you are. | |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, Use your common sense.... If there's pedestrians on the path then you don't cycle in the first place!
If your using your common sense you wouldn't be on the path in the first place,
On a flat bit of road I can be doing upwards of 20mph and a lot of people are faster than me, at that speed sometimes pedestrians come out of nowhere,
Stick to the road and stick to primary position to keep everyone safe
Try living in London where people do both. Sometimes its for safety sometimes it isn't! You do what's appropriate according to conditions and where you are."I think it was the association of chief police officers who had instructed their forces to show discretion to cycles on footways, saying that they understood many are fearful of certain roads. This came with a caveat of due care & attention to pedestrians of course. I'm conflicted about this TBH as I hate those shared use paths & try hard not to use them, but I can understand why some will take to the footway from fear. This is why I will always advise getting some training, its usually free from your local authority & it really does help with confidence. | |||
| |||
"Cyclists shouldn't be even be sharing the same road space as motor vehicles. End of. The whole policy is fundamentally flawed. Cycle areas need to be properly segregated well away from moving traffic, thus eliminating ALL potential risk of any contact/collision. As long as this government continue with their obsession in trying to mix the two, accidents and fatalities will continue to happen. They have been put on some pathways in my area. On more than one occasion I've had to drag my grandson away from the cycle path because of cyclists being close to the path we are walking along. Having cyclists close to pedestrians is no safer than having cyclists in the road. At least on the roads they are capable of going at speeds. On a path way,where children can be walking it's easy for one of them to clip someone as they ride past at speed. If you want consideration from drivers you should show consideration to pedestrians. I always give plenty of space and time to cyclists,shame they don't always do the same to me. Where did I mention anything about cyclists being close to pedestrians? "You didn't. I did. | |||
| |||
"I think all cyclists should have at least 3rd party insurance" Many do,far more than you might think. As well as cycle specific insurance offered by membership of CTC/British Cycling etc its usually included in your home insurance as public liability insurance. Offhand, think I've got £5 million worth of cover. | |||
| |||
"The sooner they ban cyclists from roads the better . They are a complete pain in the arse . "You need a better chamois cream.. | |||
| |||
| |||
" A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator. I thought there would be something like that around (to lazy to look). This is what gets me many cyclists treat their bike differently I.e. Riding on the pavement or crossing a pedestrian crossing while riding it. As far as I know it's only ok to do that on a toucan crossing, correct me if I'm wrong! Regardless of rules if a road is THAT UNSAFE, fuck it.. I'll ride on the pavement! Riding on the path is illegal and dangerous to pedestrians, Use your common sense.... If there's pedestrians on the path then you don't cycle in the first place!
If your using your common sense you wouldn't be on the path in the first place,
On a flat bit of road I can be doing upwards of 20mph and a lot of people are faster than me, at that speed sometimes pedestrians come out of nowhere,
Stick to the road and stick to primary position to keep everyone safe
Try living in London where people do both. Sometimes its for safety sometimes it isn't! You do what's appropriate according to conditions and where you are.
I think it was the association of chief police officers who had instructed their forces to show discretion to cycles on footways, saying that they understood many are fearful of certain roads. This came with a caveat of due care & attention to pedestrians of course. I'm conflicted about this TBH as I hate those shared use paths & try hard not to use them, but I can understand why some will take to the footway from fear. This is why I will always advise getting some training, its usually free from your local authority & it really does help with confidence.
"the the roundabout on the A167 as you go in to Chester le street is no safer now It's shared use! Nobody's happy with it at the minute tho! Everyone's arguing over who has the right of way  mobile phones and ppl with headsets on don't help! some cyclists are no better tho!
BELLS Arnt cool! But very good at warning people your behind them | |||
| |||
"Bells only work if you aren't encountering i-peds! But no, shared use paths are a dogs breakfast & no answer at all. They only exist because its the easiest way for a local authority to show they are creating 'cycling infrastructure' and therefore obtaining funds from central govt. " they Give folk a chance to get there dogs , also saves startling ppl! But you need a air zone for them with headsets on
| |||
"I want to say I hate cyclists but that's not fair on everyone however most are extremely arrogant and think they own wherever they are riding. I have a dog I take for a walk up my local park this is common land and the paths are wide. Trying to walk a pup isn't always easy yes she is attracted to cyclists and would try to chase if she was of the lead. However I do my best keep her under control but these cyclists go so fast on a public footpath you don't even have time to act or see them coming. They don't stop and there have been a number of occasions where they have nearly plowed into my dog. They look at me as if to say it's my fault. The biggest annoyance for me tho are cyclists who don't use cycle lanes and still insist on riding down a country road along side the purpose built cycle lane rather than on it. it appears to be a big fuck you to drivers I think this should be an on the spot fine." So you want cyclist to ride in the gutter with all the shit and broken class just to save you half a foot when trying to pass us, Plus as a cyclist the amount of cars I see driving halfway over in to the. Cycle lane is ridiculous, has as been stated before most cycle lanes are very poorly placed and actually more of a danger than not been in them | |||
"A couple of days ago there was a thread on here regarding a motorist swerving into a cyclist, I find this behaviour despicable by the driver. But further into the thread I noticed rule 163 being quoted so being the inquisitive guy I am I read up on it and yes the OP of the thread was spot on with what was said. Then I carried on reading the Highway Code as was stated by the poster. Interestingly the poster mentioned that as a cyclist why should they move over out of people's way I then noticed rule number 169 which clearly states Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Do people feel that this rule applies to cyclists as well as any other vehicle or does this only include larger vehicles?" Just to be the fly in your ointment, bicycles don't have mirrors. When you can keep up with the flow of traffic, 20 or 30 mph is that considered slow? | |||
"I used to ride a scooter to work, not some little chicken chaser but a 125, so it would easily reach 60 and I always rode at the speed of the traffic as I was instructed. However, contrary to guidace I would always ride my bike down the centre of the lane forcing drivers to overtake me as a car. Irrespective of how fast I was travelling other drivers would try and overtake me either because they percieved me as slow (I wasn't) or maybe just a bruise to their ego. But many times, too many to remember, drivers would come so close when overtaking me that the wing mirror would clip me. One guy even undertook me on a roundabout and caused me to nearly crash. Many road users have little to no regard for your safety as they know if they hit a bike they won't get harmed" I remember being told to ride just to the left or right of the centreline of the lane, you avoid oil being dropped by wheel vehicles. That was on my CBT back in 93 I will add, I don't think it has changed. | |||
| |||
"I want to say I hate cyclists but that's not fair on everyone however most are extremely arrogant and think they own wherever they are riding. I have a dog I take for a walk up my local park this is common land and the paths are wide. Trying to walk a pup isn't always easy yes she is attracted to cyclists and would try to chase if she was of the lead. However I do my best keep her under control but these cyclists go so fast on a public footpath you don't even have time to act or see them coming. They don't stop and there have been a number of occasions where they have nearly plowed into my dog. They look at me as if to say it's my fault. The biggest annoyance for me tho are cyclists who don't use cycle lanes and still insist on riding down a country road along side the purpose built cycle lane rather than on it. it appears to be a big fuck you to drivers I think this should be an on the spot fine. So you want cyclist to ride in the gutter with all the shit and broken class just to save you half a foot when trying to pass us, Plus as a cyclist the amount of cars I see driving halfway over in to the. Cycle lane is ridiculous, has as been stated before most cycle lanes are very poorly placed and actually more of a danger than not been in them" Round our area there are some country lanes linking several communities. They have special built separate cycle lanes away from the road good condition these get ignored and cyclists still decide to cycle on the road and it's a difficult road to over take on. | |||
"I think it should apply to all people using the road. All of this would be a lot simpler if everyone (motorist and cyclists alike) were more understanding and kind toward one another. -Courtney"
This is spot-on.
| |||
" Round our area there are some country lanes linking several communities. They have special built separate cycle lanes away from the road good condition these get ignored and cyclists still decide to cycle on the road and it's a difficult road to over take on. " Hey guys long time, how are you? Did you ever find my contact lens? The general answer to that is and will always be cycle lanes are dangerous why should we use them, it's my right to be on the road, motorists are the ones a fault, people are just too impatient. | |||
"And the post about insurance I completely agree, I have 5 million pounds worth of 3rd party insurance, I also think that a bike should have an m.o.t once a year, you take it in to your lbs and they service it and check it and you get given a certificate" Don't see the need for an MOT style check at all - unnecessary burden on the public and no will to enforce. Most people who actually use their cycles will be in & out the cycle shop throughout the year in any case and will keep them in good condition. If I'm cycling 100k I want to know it's not going to let me down. Also, anyone with some basic cycle tools can service their cycle in any case & there's actually not a lot to go wrong | |||
"I think it should apply to all people using the road. All of this would be a lot simpler if everyone (motorist and cyclists alike) were more understanding and kind toward one another. -Courtney
This is spot-on.
"Indeed it is spot on however you read any thread on this subject and I'll guarantee almost all cyclists will say motorists are piss poor drivers and almost all motorists will say cyclists are inconsiderate. Sometime it's the pig headedness of both sets, some drivers think they own the road and some cyclists think they do. It's like giving way to others there is no rule that says you have to but people still do why? If cyclists give way to cars and vise versa there wouldn't be an issue. | |||
"And the post about insurance I completely agree, I have 5 million pounds worth of 3rd party insurance, I also think that a bike should have an m.o.t once a year, you take it in to your lbs and they service it and check it and you get given a certificate Don't see the need for an MOT style check at all - unnecessary burden on the public and no will to enforce. Most people who actually use their cycles will be in & out the cycle shop throughout the year in any case and will keep them in good condition. If I'm cycling 100k I want to know it's not going to let me down. Also, anyone with some basic cycle tools can service their cycle in any case & there's actually not a lot to go wrong" That maybe so, but are all bikes roadworthy? What I do think should be law is all bikes should be sold with lights and anyone cycling without should be finned also all cyclists should wear hi vis clothing. It's all about being seen. | |||
" The biggest annoyance for me tho are cyclists who don't use cycle lanes and still insist on riding down a country road along side the purpose built cycle lane rather than on it. it appears to be a big fuck you to drivers I think this should be an on the spot fine." As has already been said, it's not compulsory to use cycle lanes. Down here they are regularly parked on or otherwise obstructed. They are also rarely cleaned, so all the crap ends up in them. For my regular commute, there are no cycle lanes & unlikely to ever be so no option other than the roads. | |||
" Round our area there are some country lanes linking several communities. They have special built separate cycle lanes away from the road good condition these get ignored and cyclists still decide to cycle on the road and it's a difficult road to over take on. Hey guys long time, how are you? Did you ever find my contact lens? The general answer to that is and will always be cycle lanes are dangerous why should we use them, it's my right to be on the road, motorists are the ones a fault, people are just too impatient. " Not always dangerous, not always badly built - just the good ones are few & far between. What's more pertinent is "do they actually go where you want to go?" No one will use a cycle lane if it goes nowhere or meanders for miles out of the way - after all you wouldn't choose to drive a route that took you miles out of your way would you? The problem here is that what many non cyclists see as a perfectly good cycle lane is in reality anything but. A good measure of the viability of any cycle infrastructure is how often it is used, if normal everyday commuting cyclists are choosing to mix with rush hour traffic than use the infrastructure then you can guarantee its because it doesn't work. | |||
" Round our area there are some country lanes linking several communities. They have special built separate cycle lanes away from the road good condition these get ignored and cyclists still decide to cycle on the road and it's a difficult road to over take on. Hey guys long time, how are you? Did you ever find my contact lens? The general answer to that is and will always be cycle lanes are dangerous why should we use them, it's my right to be on the road, motorists are the ones a fault, people are just too impatient. " No we never did find it
I can understand some lanes are not practicle of course I am not that arrogant. You know me I am actually a nice guy .
But like I said in our area we have some dangerous roads and the cycle lanes are brilliant. A complete seperate path and very wide. There is no argument why cyclist shouldn't use them. In fact when these cycle paths cross over the road I find many motorists stopping as if they where zebra crossings. It's safer for them and us.
I also had a near miss with a cyclist today doing well over 20 mph whilst in the park walking the dog. Had no intention on stopping or slowing down.
Also today on my way through town today phad to over take the same cyclist three times on a dangerous road because he kept undertaking me in slow moving traffic. | |||
"And the post about insurance I completely agree, I have 5 million pounds worth of 3rd party insurance, I also think that a bike should have an m.o.t once a year, you take it in to your lbs and they service it and check it and you get given a certificate Don't see the need for an MOT style check at all - unnecessary burden on the public and no will to enforce. Most people who actually use their cycles will be in & out the cycle shop throughout the year in any case and will keep them in good condition. If I'm cycling 100k I want to know it's not going to let me down. Also, anyone with some basic cycle tools can service their cycle in any case & there's actually not a lot to go wrong That maybe so, but are all bikes roadworthy? What I do think should be law is all bikes should be sold with lights and anyone cycling without should be finned also all cyclists should wear hi vis clothing. It's all about being seen. " Are all cars roadworthy? (And those are already legislated to the hilt) And don't get me started on those without VED, insurance or MOT's
Personally, I always cycle with a rear light on and the front on flash mode during the day, and solid beam as the daylight fades. So far as high-viz goes, it has not been proven to be any safer - however it is also a gripe of mine that some cyclists insist on wearing very dark clothing (Ninja cycling) | |||
| |||
"Hi Viz doesn't work, not allowed links on here but I read an alarming blog by an ambulance team member about a study done to test the effectiveness of Hi Viz kit. Basically two things leapt out, the first being that most drivers in the test didn't associate emergency vehicles on the road side with flashing lights & reflective panels with the idea that emergency workers would be on foot around these vehicles, & made no manoeuvres to avoid potential workers on foot - just slamming straight past without moving over or slowing down. If they do that with ambulances etc what chance does a cyclist have of expecting space? Second point was that modern headlamps are too well directed in that the light from them is pretty much all down onto the roadway, even at 70ft away the light was completely missing the torso & upper legs of the test subject. Quite disturbing really." Well I'm damn well certain it's easier to spot a cyclist in a hi vis vest with no lights on than a cyclist wearing black with no lights on. with regards to cycle lanes maybe cyclists need to complain after all that's what car drivers do when there is pot holes. | |||
" Round our area there are some country lanes linking several communities. They have special built separate cycle lanes away from the road good condition these get ignored and cyclists still decide to cycle on the road and it's a difficult road to over take on. Hey guys long time, how are you? Did you ever find my contact lens? The general answer to that is and will always be cycle lanes are dangerous why should we use them, it's my right to be on the road, motorists are the ones a fault, people are just too impatient. No we never did find it
I can understand some lanes are not practicle of course I am not that arrogant. You know me I am actually a nice guy .
But like I said in our area we have some dangerous roads and the cycle lanes are brilliant. A complete seperate path and very wide. There is no argument why cyclist shouldn't use them. In fact when these cycle paths cross over the road I find many motorists stopping as if they where zebra crossings. It's safer for them and us.
I also had a near miss with a cyclist today doing well over 20 mph whilst in the park walking the dog. Had no intention on stopping or slowing down.
Also today on my way through town today phad to over take the same cyclist three times on a dangerous road because he kept undertaking me in slow moving traffic."Oh I agree with you on cycle lanes. I just knew how the usual response about them go. | |||
"Hi Viz doesn't work, not allowed links on here but I read an alarming blog by an ambulance team member about a study done to test the effectiveness of Hi Viz kit. Basically two things leapt out, the first being that most drivers in the test didn't associate emergency vehicles on the road side with flashing lights & reflective panels with the idea that emergency workers would be on foot around these vehicles, & made no manoeuvres to avoid potential workers on foot - just slamming straight past without moving over or slowing down. If they do that with ambulances etc what chance does a cyclist have of expecting space? Second point was that modern headlamps are too well directed in that the light from them is pretty much all down onto the roadway, even at 70ft away the light was completely missing the torso & upper legs of the test subject. Quite disturbing really. Well I'm damn well certain it's easier to spot a cyclist in a hi vis vest with no lights on than a cyclist wearing black with no lights on. with regards to cycle lanes maybe cyclists need to complain after all that's what car drivers do when there is pot holes. " Lights are what's needed & I'm bang alongside the idea of police fining those without lights. Complaining about cycle lanes? We do, constantly. It gets nothing done it seems because it is a low priority & the highways engineers really haven't a clue what is required. There's no consensus on what constitutes good infrastructure so councils just create random rubbish when they have to justify their budget for the upcoming year. One near my house is quite literally 45ft long & can only be used if you cycle on a footway to get to it! When the junction was remodelled a few yrs back we all got a brochure showing us all the new features, including what looked like decent cycle provision. Come the actual build, & what we actually got was 45ft of a kerbed-off cycle lane leading from a back street directly onto the footway at the junction & faced with iron railings! That is the reality of cycle lane provision in this country & that is why it is so under utilised even by newer, less confident cyclists. | |||
| |||
"Case in point up above, "cycle lanes crossing the road" Think about that for a moment, think about the lack of foresight that creates a system where the users constantly have to stop & give way (without the help of traffic lights) to get around? Its because of the continuing resistance (as evidenced on this thread) to accepting cycles as vehicles & continuing to treat them as a form of pedestrian who has to constantly give way. That's why they are rubbish." ???? Crossing the road won't be avoid if you are to create of road cycle lanes Even high quality cycle lane systems in Holland and Belgium you need a crossing for | |||
"Case in point up above, "cycle lanes crossing the road" Think about that for a moment, think about the lack of foresight that creates a system where the users constantly have to stop & give way (without the help of traffic lights) to get around? Its because of the continuing resistance (as evidenced on this thread) to accepting cycles as vehicles & continuing to treat them as a form of pedestrian who has to constantly give way. That's why they are rubbish. ???? Crossing the road won't be avoid if you are to create of road cycle lanes Even high quality cycle lane systems in Holland and Belgium you need a crossing for" In those countries they treat cycles as vehicles, creating proper light controlled junctions that allow the cycles to move through. In this country cycles aren't. We are highly unlikely to get Dutch style infrastructure in most UK towns & remember that even in the Netherlands there aren't separate lanes outside of the towns. What is different is the idea that cycles are legitimate road users with every right to the roads and deserving of consideration, unlike the UK where so many love to cling to the idea that cyclists are freeloaders with no rights, rather than just another road user with somewhere to go. | |||
| |||
"This all boils down to common sense on the road for all users,,,,,,,,,what I would recommend would be that all cyclists take a least a CBT,,,,,,,,,when I took my motorcycle test my vision and awareness of the road and all vehicles improved by more than double,,,,,,I think that speaks volumes,,,,,,,be safe all road users "The bikeability programme is the modern replacement for the much-derided cycling proficiency test, and is in part based on the teachings from the CBT adapted for cyclists. Its in three levels,beginner, intermediate, advanced although those might not be the exact terms. Little things like not stopping pedalling when you approach a junction because a driver will see your body language and think you are slowing down for a turn. This is harder than it sounds as the natural reaction to a perceived threat from a vehicle stopped at a side road is to slightly slow down in case it pulls out. Definitely worth doing - and they are free! | |||
| |||
"This all boils down to common sense on the road for all users,,,,,,,,,what I would recommend would be that all cyclists take a least a CBT,,,,,,,,,when I took my motorcycle test my vision and awareness of the road and all vehicles improved by more than double,,,,,,I think that speaks volumes,,,,,,,be safe all road users
The bikeability programme is the modern replacement for the much-derided cycling proficiency test, and is in part based on the teachings from the CBT adapted for cyclists.
Its in three levels,beginner, intermediate, advanced although those might not be the exact terms.
Little things like not stopping pedalling when you approach a junction because a driver will see your body language and think you are slowing down for a turn. This is harder than it sounds as the natural reaction to a perceived threat from a vehicle stopped at a side road is to slightly slow down in case it pulls out.
Definitely worth doing - and they are free!"perhaps that should be compulsory for any adult buying a bike, would be difficult to implement though, but none the less a good idea,,,,,,,,,people please heed,,,,,,, | |||
"A couple of days ago there was a thread on here regarding a motorist swerving into a cyclist, I find this behaviour despicable by the driver. But further into the thread I noticed rule 163 being quoted so being the inquisitive guy I am I read up on it and yes the OP of the thread was spot on with what was said. Then I carried on reading the Highway Code as was stated by the poster. Interestingly the poster mentioned that as a cyclist why should they move over out of people's way I then noticed rule number 169 which clearly states Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Do people feel that this rule applies to cyclists as well as any other vehicle or does this only include larger vehicles?" I don't understand. How often does the cyclist have to keep checking behind (then wobbling) and how does the cyclist decide when the line of cars is long enough to warrant them pulling over? What if the cyclist checks behind and wobbles as i decide i can overtake them? I think id prefer them to just keep going and ill wait for the conditions to allow me to safely over take. | |||
"This all boils down to common sense on the road for all users,,,,,,,,,what I would recommend would be that all cyclists take a least a CBT,,,,,,,,,when I took my motorcycle test my vision and awareness of the road and all vehicles improved by more than double,,,,,,I think that speaks volumes,,,,,,,be safe all road users
The bikeability programme is the modern replacement for the much-derided cycling proficiency test, and is in part based on the teachings from the CBT adapted for cyclists.
Its in three levels,beginner, intermediate, advanced although those might not be the exact terms.
Little things like not stopping pedalling when you approach a junction because a driver will see your body language and think you are slowing down for a turn. This is harder than it sounds as the natural reaction to a perceived threat from a vehicle stopped at a side road is to slightly slow down in case it pulls out.
Definitely worth doing - and they are free! perhaps that should be compulsory for any adult buying a bike, would be difficult to implement though, but none the less a good idea,,,,,,,,,people please heed,,,,,,, "That should be made compulsory to anyone applying for a drivers license. They should also have to ride a 50cc moped for at least 6 mths to. | |||
| |||
"A couple of days ago there was a thread on here regarding a motorist swerving into a cyclist, I find this behaviour despicable by the driver. But further into the thread I noticed rule 163 being quoted so being the inquisitive guy I am I read up on it and yes the OP of the thread was spot on with what was said. Then I carried on reading the Highway Code as was stated by the poster. Interestingly the poster mentioned that as a cyclist why should they move over out of people's way I then noticed rule number 169 which clearly states Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Do people feel that this rule applies to cyclists as well as any other vehicle or does this only include larger vehicles? I don't understand. How often does the cyclist have to keep checking behind (then wobbling) and how does the cyclist decide when the line of cars is long enough to warrant them pulling over? What if the cyclist checks behind and wobbles as i decide i can overtake them? I think id prefer them to just keep going and ill wait for the conditions to allow me to safely over take. " The pertinent point of rule 169 is "if necessary, pull in where it is safe". The cyclist decides where and when it is safe, not the driver behind. This is the bit many seem incapable of comprehending, no one should be expecting anyone else to put themselves in danger simply for your convenience. Grasp this fact people, My safety is more important than your convenience. That goes for everyone, regardless of mode of transport. | |||
"A couple of days ago there was a thread on here regarding a motorist swerving into a cyclist, I find this behaviour despicable by the driver. But further into the thread I noticed rule 163 being quoted so being the inquisitive guy I am I read up on it and yes the OP of the thread was spot on with what was said. Then I carried on reading the Highway Code as was stated by the poster. Interestingly the poster mentioned that as a cyclist why should they move over out of people's way I then noticed rule number 169 which clearly states Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Do people feel that this rule applies to cyclists as well as any other vehicle or does this only include larger vehicles? I don't understand. How often does the cyclist have to keep checking behind (then wobbling) and how does the cyclist decide when the line of cars is long enough to warrant them pulling over? What if the cyclist checks behind and wobbles as i decide i can overtake them? I think id prefer them to just keep going and ill wait for the conditions to allow me to safely over take. The pertinent point of rule 169 is "if necessary, pull in where it is safe". The cyclist decides where and when it is safe, not the driver behind. This is the bit many seem incapable of comprehending, no one should be expecting anyone else to put themselves in danger simply for your convenience. Grasp this fact people, My safety is more important than your convenience. That goes for everyone, regardless of mode of transport." Rule 169 states vehicle Under law that's a mechanically propelled vehicle that is a vehicle powered by mechanical means not. A bicycle It is designed for tractors road maintenance machines there is no onus on other road users to pull over and let anyone pass . A safe place to stop is a lay-by in this instance | |||
| |||
"Well that pissed on his bonefire." You can buy a flag with a reflector that sticks out the side of the bike so they give you a bit more room overtaking Also you could put a bamboo cane on top of your helmet with a little flag so people can see you better in traffic or if long enough they can see you when your in front of a bus Perhaps a flashing light instead of a flag | |||
 | |||
"I don't honestly believe a cycling test or scheme of any kind while have any effect because the people in bikes..you mag notice I don't refer to them as cyclists..know that they are choosing to ride through red lights or make other stupid choices and they do so willingly much like the instructed and tested car drivers choose to speed, use mobile phones and otherwise drive poorly. I've never seen a cyclist ride whilst on the phone and that's a much bigger cause of accidents and potentially fatal near misses but I won't deny others may have. Whilst were proposing radical and ridiculously draconian solutions to problems may I suggest a ban on phones even going in cars in case the owner might be tempted to use it?? "Did yet know it is legal to use your mobile phone while cycling? Now how stupid is that? I suggest a part of learning be on a bike not in case them people may cycle but so it would make car drivers more aware of the dangers faced by cyclist | |||
| |||
"A couple of days ago there was a thread on here regarding a motorist swerving into a cyclist, I find this behaviour despicable by the driver. But further into the thread I noticed rule 163 being quoted so being the inquisitive guy I am I read up on it and yes the OP of the thread was spot on with what was said. Then I carried on reading the Highway Code as was stated by the poster. Interestingly the poster mentioned that as a cyclist why should they move over out of people's way I then noticed rule number 169 which clearly states Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. Do people feel that this rule applies to cyclists as well as any other vehicle or does this only include larger vehicles? I don't understand. How often does the cyclist have to keep checking behind (then wobbling) and how does the cyclist decide when the line of cars is long enough to warrant them pulling over? What if the cyclist checks behind and wobbles as i decide i can overtake them? I think id prefer them to just keep going and ill wait for the conditions to allow me to safely over take. The pertinent point of rule 169 is "if necessary, pull in where it is safe". The cyclist decides where and when it is safe, not the driver behind. This is the bit many seem incapable of comprehending, no one should be expecting anyone else to put themselves in danger simply for your convenience. Grasp this fact people, My safety is more important than your convenience. That goes for everyone, regardless of mode of transport. Rule 169 states vehicle Under law that's a mechanically propelled vehicle that is a vehicle powered by mechanical means not. A bicycle It is designed for tractors road maintenance machines there is no onus on other road users to pull over and let anyone pass . A safe place to stop is a lay-by in this instance " Funny I copied and pasted that from the gov website it didn't state any of the motor propelled stuff | |||
"Well that pissed on his bonefire." Nope bonfire burning brightly! | |||
| |||
"Trouble is just because someone can turn a pedal and stay upright they think they can cycle,,,,,,,,,and I see cyclists on mobile phones every day,,,,,,,,,,??" As I said earlier using your phone on a push bike is legal, stupid but legal | |||
| |||
"I see you missed rule 167 out..." Given that only 2 rules were mentioned in the OP, I would say quite a few were left out. But 167 seems like it's just the flips side of 163, which was mentioned... -Courtney | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Cyclists shouldn't be even be sharing the same road space as motor vehicles. End of. The whole policy is fundamentally flawed. Cycle areas need to be properly segregated well away from moving traffic, thus eliminating ALL potential risk of any contact/collision. As long as this government continue with their obsession in trying to mix the two, accidents and fatalities will continue to happen. They have been put on some pathways in my area. On more than one occasion I've had to drag my grandson away from the cycle path because of cyclists being close to the path we are walking along. Having cyclists close to pedestrians is no safer than having cyclists in the road. At least on the roads they are capable of going at speeds. On a path way,where children can be walking it's easy for one of them to clip someone as they ride past at speed. If you want consideration from drivers you should show consideration to pedestrians. I always give plenty of space and time to cyclists,shame they don't always do the same to me. " Agree fully here! Having been on a DAS course this morning it was stated that children up to ages of 7 or 8 generally have NO perception of speed of any vehicle so having cycles wizzing along next to pedestrians makes me shudder, the difference in speed being so great - greater than the difference between cars etc. and modern cyclists. | |||
| |||
"Well that pissed on his bonefire. You can buy a flag with a reflector that sticks out the side of the bike so they give you a bit more room overtaking Also you could put a bamboo cane on top of your helmet with a little flag so people can see you better in traffic or if long enough they can see you when your in front of a bus Perhaps a flashing light instead of a flag " I have been knocked off my bike whilst wearing a fluorescent yellow jackets, it doesn't matter what you wear if the driver is not looking for you, he won't see you. | |||
| |||
"Well that pissed on his bonefire. You can buy a flag with a reflector that sticks out the side of the bike so they give you a bit more room overtaking Also you could put a bamboo cane on top of your helmet with a little flag so people can see you better in traffic or if long enough they can see you when your in front of a bus Perhaps a flashing light instead of a flag I have been knocked off my bike whilst wearing a fluorescent yellow jackets, it doesn't matter what you wear if the driver is not looking for you, he won't see you." Try a longer bamboo cane with more flashing lights | |||
| |||
"Well that pissed on his bonefire. You can buy a flag with a reflector that sticks out the side of the bike so they give you a bit more room overtaking Also you could put a bamboo cane on top of your helmet with a little flag so people can see you better in traffic or if long enough they can see you when your in front of a bus Perhaps a flashing light instead of a flag I have been knocked off my bike whilst wearing a fluorescent yellow jackets, it doesn't matter what you wear if the driver is not looking for you, he won't see you." Many years ago my brother rear ended a double decker bus on his bike because he wasn't looking. I say about hi vis vests because I've nearly knocked over cyclists who insist on wearing black and have no lights on at all. Besides surely it's better to attempt to be seen than do all in your power to be awkward! I keep a hi vis best in my car in case I break down or need to change a tyre. | |||
"Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down." I think that's more for vehicles on the other side of the road. Otherwise it'd be illegal to overtake full stop. More topical to this post would be rule 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you. | |||
"Well that pissed on his bonefire. You can buy a flag with a reflector that sticks out the side of the bike so they give you a bit more room overtaking Also you could put a bamboo cane on top of your helmet with a little flag so people can see you better in traffic or if long enough they can see you when your in front of a bus Perhaps a flashing light instead of a flag I have been knocked off my bike whilst wearing a fluorescent yellow jackets, it doesn't matter what you wear if the driver is not looking for you, he won't see you. Many years ago my brother rear ended a double decker bus on his bike because he wasn't looking. I say about hi vis vests because I've nearly knocked over cyclists who insist on wearing black and have no lights on at all. Besides surely it's better to attempt to be seen than do all in your power to be awkward! I keep a hi vis best in my car in case I break down or need to change a tyre. " Two different things in one here, Hi Viz only 'works' in daylight as it needs UV light to fluoresce. There is currently no evidence it makes much difference. Reflectives are something else, and they do work, especially in the pitch dark of unlit country lanes. I have Hi Viz shoe covers when riding in winter, I need to keep my feet warm & they may as well be bright. They also have a broad reflective strip on the rear. TBH, even though I don't put much faith in Hi Viz I have two winter jerseys that are black with prominent Hi Viz sections on them plus I have a Hi Viz helmet. I bought them because they roughly match my road bike which is black and yellow, not because I have blind faith in the defensive properties of the colour scheme. | |||
"Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down. I think that's more for vehicles on the other side of the road. Otherwise it'd be illegal to overtake full stop. More topical to this post would be rule 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you." So do you maintain a 2 second gap between you and the bicycle you wish to over take? Then whilst overtaking do you afford as much road space as you would a car or horse. | |||
| |||
"Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down. I think that's more for vehicles on the other side of the road. Otherwise it'd be illegal to overtake full stop. More topical to this post would be rule 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you." Makes my point for me. Maintain course & speed, the slowing down is irrelevant for a bicycle,do not obstruct. Yep, nowhere does it say a cyclist must move out of the way to allow a vehicle to pass. Its quite clear the onus is on the overtaking driver to do so with care & consideration, the vehicle being overtaken simply has to hold their line & not accelerate. Now, you are going to say something about 'riding Primary' blocking an overtake - so I'll refer you back to rule 169 to show that where Primary is taken is where you legally cannot overtake anyway (Hint, rule 169 says DO NOT in bold, this means it has Statute Law behind it.) The very reason Primary Position is taught is because the overwhelming majority of drivers simply cannot drive to rule 169 when around cyclists, so cyclists have to ride to protect themselves. Glad that's cleared up. | |||
"Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down. I think that's more for vehicles on the other side of the road. Otherwise it'd be illegal to overtake full stop. More topical to this post would be rule 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you. So do you maintain a 2 second gap between you and the bicycle you wish to over take? Then whilst overtaking do you afford as much road space as you would a car or horse." As much as I possibly can yes! Are you trying to piss on my bonfire again? 
I'm a fat fucker now but I used to love to cycle to work but started to work further and further from home so stopped. I have no issues with cyclists I just find a good percentage scary, I also find a higher percentage of motorists also scare me. | |||
| |||
"Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down. I think that's more for vehicles on the other side of the road. Otherwise it'd be illegal to overtake full stop. More topical to this post would be rule 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you. So do you maintain a 2 second gap between you and the bicycle you wish to over take? Then whilst overtaking do you afford as much road space as you would a car or horse. As much as I possibly can yes! Are you trying to piss on my bonfire again?
I'm a fat fucker now but I used to love to cycle to work but started to work further and further from home so stopped. I have no issues with cyclists I just find a good percentage scary, I also find a higher percentage of motorists also scare me."How far is too far may I ask? | |||
"I do wish the government would do more for cyclists with regards to cycle paths. They're always moaning that Britain is getting fat, and that's true: but they make gym memberships expensive, close council-owned gyms and swimming pools, and don't build cycle paths for cyclists to safely use. We then end up with this argument coming up left and right, and drivers complaining about cyclists and vice versa. " Somewhere in the country, over £6,000,000 was recently spent turning a dis-used railway bridge into a cycle path (info from Rail magazine)! If a railway preservation group wanted to re-open that as a stretch of railway they would have spent years trying to raise the money. They probably wouldn`t even bother to make a serious survey into it. Same thing has happened local to me on the former S&D near Blanford, Dorset. Sustrans paid for the majority of the work with County Council chipping in. Many cyclists complained the Council made a bodge of the surface as they were sliding and getting punctures. Turns out surface was exactly as Sustrans planned it to be so to slow down cyclists and make it safer for walkers. | |||
"I do wish the government would do more for cyclists with regards to cycle paths. They're always moaning that Britain is getting fat, and that's true: but they make gym memberships expensive, close council-owned gyms and swimming pools, and don't build cycle paths for cyclists to safely use. We then end up with this argument coming up left and right, and drivers complaining about cyclists and vice versa. Somewhere in the country, over £6,000,000 was recently spent turning a dis-used railway bridge into a cycle path (info from Rail magazine)! If a railway preservation group wanted to re-open that as a stretch of railway they would have spent years trying to raise the money. They probably wouldn`t even bother to make a serious survey into it. Same thing has happened local to me on the former S&D near Blanford, Dorset. Sustrans paid for the majority of the work with County Council chipping in. Many cyclists complained the Council made a bodge of the surface as they were sliding and getting punctures. Turns out surface was exactly as Sustrans planned it to be so to slow down cyclists and make it safer for walkers. "And then People wonder why cyclists don't want to use it i bet. Imagine if the m6 toll road advertised itself as being slower than the m6... | |||
"I do wish the government would do more for cyclists with regards to cycle paths. They're always moaning that Britain is getting fat, and that's true: but they make gym memberships expensive, close council-owned gyms and swimming pools, and don't build cycle paths for cyclists to safely use. We then end up with this argument coming up left and right, and drivers complaining about cyclists and vice versa. " The cycle paths I used to see a lot in Merseyside where littered with broken glass, so sadly unusable. Down in Brighton they are separated from the pedestrian area by a white line. Not really acceptable at all, as no one bothers to look out for cyclists. I prefer riding on the roads, only thing is you get idiots trying to scrape you off on parked cars. I agree something needs to be done, maybe a stepped approach to your own transport. Start off on a bike at 14, a moped at 16, a motorcycle at 18, before you are allowed to be in a 1.1 car for another 2 years. | |||
| |||
"Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down. I think that's more for vehicles on the other side of the road. Otherwise it'd be illegal to overtake full stop. More topical to this post would be rule 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you. Makes my point for me. Maintain course & speed, the slowing down is irrelevant for a bicycle,do not obstruct. Yep, nowhere does it say a cyclist must move out of the way to allow a vehicle to pass. Its quite clear the onus is on the overtaking driver to do so with care & consideration, the vehicle being overtaken simply has to hold their line & not accelerate. Now, you are going to say something about 'riding Primary' blocking an overtake - so I'll refer you back to rule 169 to show that where Primary is taken is where you legally cannot overtake anyway (Hint, rule 169 says DO NOT in bold, this means it has Statute Law behind it.) The very reason Primary Position is taught is because the overwhelming majority of drivers simply cannot drive to rule 169 when around cyclists, so cyclists have to ride to protect themselves. Glad that's cleared up." Yeah as clear as mud!!! According to the British cycling federation it says (lifted from the website)On today’s roads with much higher volumes of traffic cyclists need a set of skills and knowledge in order to ride effectively and safely. They need to act in a way that's respectful of the Highway Code and other road users. The British Cycling guides to effective traffic riding will help you become a more visible and safer rider, whether commuting, training or riding for pleasure. In this article we look at the primary and secondary position. The primary and secondary positions An effective rider always occupies the moving traffic lane, either in its left hand third, roughly in line with the near-side of a car in the same place – thus ensuring that she/he can be seen and that drivers have to manoeuvre to overtake – or, if need be, the middle of the lane – thus preventing being overtaken and leaving themselves free to turn, overtake, change lanes etc. These riding positions are variously known as ‘normal’ and ‘taking the lane’ or, technically, ‘secondary’ and ‘primary’. It seems to me that your style of cycling is to adopt the primary position and screw anyone else regardless of the Highway Code! You say drivers don't understand/follow 167 but it sounds like you don't bother with 168 or 169, if you did then 167 wouldn't be an issue would it? | |||
| |||
"Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down. I think that's more for vehicles on the other side of the road. Otherwise it'd be illegal to overtake full stop. More topical to this post would be rule 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you. Makes my point for me. Maintain course & speed, the slowing down is irrelevant for a bicycle,do not obstruct. Yep, nowhere does it say a cyclist must move out of the way to allow a vehicle to pass. Its quite clear the onus is on the overtaking driver to do so with care & consideration, the vehicle being overtaken simply has to hold their line & not accelerate. Now, you are going to say something about 'riding Primary' blocking an overtake - so I'll refer you back to rule 169 to show that where Primary is taken is where you legally cannot overtake anyway (Hint, rule 169 says DO NOT in bold, this means it has Statute Law behind it.) The very reason Primary Position is taught is because the overwhelming majority of drivers simply cannot drive to rule 169 when around cyclists, so cyclists have to ride to protect themselves. Glad that's cleared up. Yeah as clear as mud!!! According to the British cycling federation it says (lifted from the website)On today’s roads with much higher volumes of traffic cyclists need a set of skills and knowledge in order to ride effectively and safely. They need to act in a way that's respectful of the Highway Code and other road users. The British Cycling guides to effective traffic riding will help you become a more visible and safer rider, whether commuting, training or riding for pleasure. In this article we look at the primary and secondary position. The primary and secondary positions An effective rider always occupies the moving traffic lane, either in its left hand third, roughly in line with the near-side of a car in the same place – thus ensuring that she/he can be seen and that drivers have to manoeuvre to overtake – or, if need be, the middle of the lane – thus preventing being overtaken and leaving themselves free to turn, overtake, change lanes etc. These riding positions are variously known as ‘normal’ and ‘taking the lane’ or, technically, ‘secondary’ and ‘primary’. It seems to me that your style of cycling is to adopt the primary position and screw anyone else regardless of the Highway Code! You say drivers don't understand/follow 167 but it sounds like you don't bother with 168 or 169, if you did then 167 wouldn't be an issue would it? " Don't put words in my mouth please. Nowhere did I say I ride Primary all the time. I stated I ride Primary as and when required for my safety, that is when passing parked cars, when approaching junctions, approaching road furniture/traffic islands and when the a narrow road plus oncoming traffic makes a safe overtake impossible. The rest of the time I'll ride Secondary, but only when I deem it safe to do so. You've seen the rules, you've seen the advice given to cyclists & you've read why that is so. Can you now grasp the reasoning? | |||
"Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down. I think that's more for vehicles on the other side of the road. Otherwise it'd be illegal to overtake full stop. More topical to this post would be rule 168: Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you. Makes my point for me. Maintain course & speed, the slowing down is irrelevant for a bicycle,do not obstruct. Yep, nowhere does it say a cyclist must move out of the way to allow a vehicle to pass. Its quite clear the onus is on the overtaking driver to do so with care & consideration, the vehicle being overtaken simply has to hold their line & not accelerate. Now, you are going to say something about 'riding Primary' blocking an overtake - so I'll refer you back to rule 169 to show that where Primary is taken is where you legally cannot overtake anyway (Hint, rule 169 says DO NOT in bold, this means it has Statute Law behind it.) The very reason Primary Position is taught is because the overwhelming majority of drivers simply cannot drive to rule 169 when around cyclists, so cyclists have to ride to protect themselves. Glad that's cleared up. Yeah as clear as mud!!! According to the British cycling federation it says (lifted from the website)On today’s roads with much higher volumes of traffic cyclists need a set of skills and knowledge in order to ride effectively and safely. They need to act in a way that's respectful of the Highway Code and other road users. The British Cycling guides to effective traffic riding will help you become a more visible and safer rider, whether commuting, training or riding for pleasure. In this article we look at the primary and secondary position. The primary and secondary positions An effective rider always occupies the moving traffic lane, either in its left hand third, roughly in line with the near-side of a car in the same place – thus ensuring that she/he can be seen and that drivers have to manoeuvre to overtake – or, if need be, the middle of the lane – thus preventing being overtaken and leaving themselves free to turn, overtake, change lanes etc. These riding positions are variously known as ‘normal’ and ‘taking the lane’ or, technically, ‘secondary’ and ‘primary’. It seems to me that your style of cycling is to adopt the primary position and screw anyone else regardless of the Highway Code! You say drivers don't understand/follow 167 but it sounds like you don't bother with 168 or 169, if you did then 167 wouldn't be an issue would it? Don't put words in my mouth please. Nowhere did I say I ride Primary all the time. I stated I ride Primary as and when required for my safety, that is when passing parked cars, when approaching junctions, approaching road furniture/traffic islands and when the a narrow road plus oncoming traffic makes a safe overtake impossible. The rest of the time I'll ride Secondary, but only when I deem it safe to do so. You've seen the rules, you've seen the advice given to cyclists & you've read why that is so. Can you now grasp the reasoning?" Ok point taken. Clem I stated previous I used to cycle so I have practiced what I preach, I only learnt to drive 10 years ago and that was because my girlfriend lived 30+ miles from me. And in answer to another previous question I live a good 2 hours away (by bike) 1 hour by good old London Underground to kings cross as much as I'd love to cycle it's too far for me, I'd cycle to the station but there ain't very good sheds to lock your bike without someone trying to nick it, and as my train is usually busy both directions I don't think it'd be fair taking it on the train. | |||
"Rule 213 also very useful." Very true, it seems to me that the Highway Code is as contradictory as the bible. | |||
"Rule 213 also very useful. Very true, it seems to me that the Highway Code is as contradictory as the bible. " Because it is a compilation of Statute Law & suggestions of good practice, which is why some rules state "you should/should not" & others "YOU MUST/MUST NOT" in bold. Each rule covers several scenarios & is linked to one or more scenarios from one or more rules. This is an attempt to show that each situation is different & should be resolved by the methods shown by linking the scenarios together. Hmm, that made sense in my head but not sure now ive typed it out! | |||
"Rule 213 also very useful. Very true, it seems to me that the Highway Code is as contradictory as the bible. Because it is a compilation of Statute Law & suggestions of good practice, which is why some rules state "you should/should not" & others "YOU MUST/MUST NOT" in bold. Each rule covers several scenarios & is linked to one or more scenarios from one or more rules. This is an attempt to show that each situation is different & should be resolved by the methods shown by linking the scenarios together. Hmm, that made sense in my head but not sure now ive typed it out! " I do understand that and honestly I think people need to pay way more attention the the HC, I could fill a whole forum thread with things that bug me with roads and the people that use them, and it may surprise some that most are aimed at motorists, I think it was you who said about fog lights yesterday. Like I've already said I think cycling training is great and to a degree would be great if they could licence it (not easy to police) because as others have said before it's always the minority who spoil it for the majority. | |||
"Rule 213 also very useful. Very true, it seems to me that the Highway Code is as contradictory as the bible. Because it is a compilation of Statute Law & suggestions of good practice, which is why some rules state "you should/should not" & others "YOU MUST/MUST NOT" in bold. Each rule covers several scenarios & is linked to one or more scenarios from one or more rules. This is an attempt to show that each situation is different & should be resolved by the methods shown by linking the scenarios together. Hmm, that made sense in my head but not sure now ive typed it out! I do understand that and honestly I think people need to pay way more attention the the HC, I could fill a whole forum thread with things that bug me with roads and the people that use them, and it may surprise some that most are aimed at motorists, I think it was you who said about fog lights yesterday. Like I've already said I think cycling training is great and to a degree would be great if they could licence it (not easy to police) because as others have said before it's always the minority who spoil it for the majority. " Can't be licensed without a major change in several laws, if licenses for cyclists are to be imposed then it would mean likewise for horses AND pedestrians! Don't know about you but I can't imagine anyone wanting a license to walk on the public highway. As it is currently Case Law,Statute Law & International Treaty you can see why it won't be considered by the lawmakers. There are lots of encouragement ideas around to increase the uptake of cycle training although I must admit I don't know how/if bikeability level 1 is delivered in schools. | |||
"Rule 213 also very useful. Very true, it seems to me that the Highway Code is as contradictory as the bible. Because it is a compilation of Statute Law & suggestions of good practice, which is why some rules state "you should/should not" & others "YOU MUST/MUST NOT" in bold. Each rule covers several scenarios & is linked to one or more scenarios from one or more rules. This is an attempt to show that each situation is different & should be resolved by the methods shown by linking the scenarios together. Hmm, that made sense in my head but not sure now ive typed it out! I do understand that and honestly I think people need to pay way more attention the the HC, I could fill a whole forum thread with things that bug me with roads and the people that use them, and it may surprise some that most are aimed at motorists, I think it was you who said about fog lights yesterday. Like I've already said I think cycling training is great and to a degree would be great if they could licence it (not easy to police) because as others have said before it's always the minority who spoil it for the majority. Can't be licensed without a major change in several laws, if licenses for cyclists are to be imposed then it would mean likewise for horses AND pedestrians! Don't know about you but I can't imagine anyone wanting a license to walk on the public highway. As it is currently Case Law,Statute Law & International Treaty you can see why it won't be considered by the lawmakers. There are lots of encouragement ideas around to increase the uptake of cycle training although I must admit I don't know how/if bikeability level 1 is delivered in schools." Oh I don't think it could happen and it never would. But I don't understand why if cyclists are licensed pedestrians need to be? I can understand with horses though. My reasoning is a bike, car, motor cycle and horse can cause serious damage if operated/handled correctly. as someone else commented a bike is still a vehicle and thus should be treated like one. | |||
"I do wish the government would do more for cyclists with regards to cycle paths. They're always moaning that Britain is getting fat, and that's true: but they make gym memberships expensive, close council-owned gyms and swimming pools, and don't build cycle paths for cyclists to safely use. We then end up with this argument coming up left and right, and drivers complaining about cyclists and vice versa. Somewhere in the country, over £6,000,000 was recently spent turning a dis-used railway bridge into a cycle path (info from Rail magazine)! If a railway preservation group wanted to re-open that as a stretch of railway they would have spent years trying to raise the money. They probably wouldn`t even bother to make a serious survey into it. Same thing has happened local to me on the former S&D near Blanford, Dorset. Sustrans paid for the majority of the work with County Council chipping in. Many cyclists complained the Council made a bodge of the surface as they were sliding and getting punctures. Turns out surface was exactly as Sustrans planned it to be so to slow down cyclists and make it safer for walkers.
And then People wonder why cyclists don't want to use it i bet. Imagine if the m6 toll road advertised itself as being slower than the m6... "Funny thing is, only riders of cycles with what I would call "race track" tyres are the only ones who had problems! Those who rode traditional or mountain bikes had no problem at all! They just rode according to the conditions and had "proper" tyres! | |||
"I do wish the government would do more for cyclists with regards to cycle paths. They're always moaning that Britain is getting fat, and that's true: but they make gym memberships expensive, close council-owned gyms and swimming pools, and don't build cycle paths for cyclists to safely use. We then end up with this argument coming up left and right, and drivers complaining about cyclists and vice versa. Somewhere in the country, over £6,000,000 was recently spent turning a dis-used railway bridge into a cycle path (info from Rail magazine)! If a railway preservation group wanted to re-open that as a stretch of railway they would have spent years trying to raise the money. They probably wouldn`t even bother to make a serious survey into it. Same thing has happened local to me on the former S&D near Blanford, Dorset. Sustrans paid for the majority of the work with County Council chipping in. Many cyclists complained the Council made a bodge of the surface as they were sliding and getting punctures. Turns out surface was exactly as Sustrans planned it to be so to slow down cyclists and make it safer for walkers.
And then People wonder why cyclists don't want to use it i bet. Imagine if the m6 toll road advertised itself as being slower than the m6...
Funny thing is, only riders of cycles with what I would call "race track" tyres are the only ones who had problems! Those who rode traditional or mountain bikes had no problem at all! They just rode according to the conditions and had "proper" tyres!"I'm not 100% but I think they are road tyres where as mountain bike tyres are off road tyres. | |||
"Rule 213 also very useful. Very true, it seems to me that the Highway Code is as contradictory as the bible. Because it is a compilation of Statute Law & suggestions of good practice, which is why some rules state "you should/should not" & others "YOU MUST/MUST NOT" in bold. Each rule covers several scenarios & is linked to one or more scenarios from one or more rules. This is an attempt to show that each situation is different & should be resolved by the methods shown by linking the scenarios together. Hmm, that made sense in my head but not sure now ive typed it out! I do understand that and honestly I think people need to pay way more attention the the HC, I could fill a whole forum thread with things that bug me with roads and the people that use them, and it may surprise some that most are aimed at motorists, I think it was you who said about fog lights yesterday. Like I've already said I think cycling training is great and to a degree would be great if they could licence it (not easy to police) because as others have said before it's always the minority who spoil it for the majority. Can't be licensed without a major change in several laws, if licenses for cyclists are to be imposed then it would mean likewise for horses AND pedestrians! Don't know about you but I can't imagine anyone wanting a license to walk on the public highway. As it is currently Case Law,Statute Law & International Treaty you can see why it won't be considered by the lawmakers. There are lots of encouragement ideas around to increase the uptake of cycle training although I must admit I don't know how/if bikeability level 1 is delivered in schools. Oh I don't think it could happen and it never would. But I don't understand why if cyclists are licensed pedestrians need to be? I can understand with horses though. My reasoning is a bike, car, motor cycle and horse can cause serious damage if operated/handled correctly. as someone else commented a bike is still a vehicle and thus should be treated like one. " Because they (horses, pedestrians & cyclists) are all lumped together in those laws & treaties, attempt to limit one & the others are also affected as they all have Statutory Right to the public highways under law. That's the way it is now & I can't see any govt seriously giving Parliamentary time to debate such a change. | |||
"Rule 213 also very useful. Very true, it seems to me that the Highway Code is as contradictory as the bible. Because it is a compilation of Statute Law & suggestions of good practice, which is why some rules state "you should/should not" & others "YOU MUST/MUST NOT" in bold. Each rule covers several scenarios & is linked to one or more scenarios from one or more rules. This is an attempt to show that each situation is different & should be resolved by the methods shown by linking the scenarios together. Hmm, that made sense in my head but not sure now ive typed it out! I do understand that and honestly I think people need to pay way more attention the the HC, I could fill a whole forum thread with things that bug me with roads and the people that use them, and it may surprise some that most are aimed at motorists, I think it was you who said about fog lights yesterday. Like I've already said I think cycling training is great and to a degree would be great if they could licence it (not easy to police) because as others have said before it's always the minority who spoil it for the majority. Can't be licensed without a major change in several laws, if licenses for cyclists are to be imposed then it would mean likewise for horses AND pedestrians! Don't know about you but I can't imagine anyone wanting a license to walk on the public highway. As it is currently Case Law,Statute Law & International Treaty you can see why it won't be considered by the lawmakers. There are lots of encouragement ideas around to increase the uptake of cycle training although I must admit I don't know how/if bikeability level 1 is delivered in schools. Oh I don't think it could happen and it never would. But I don't understand why if cyclists are licensed pedestrians need to be? I can understand with horses though. My reasoning is a bike, car, motor cycle and horse can cause serious damage if operated/handled correctly. as someone else commented a bike is still a vehicle and thus should be treated like one. " Pedestrians with headphones on and engrossed in their phones oblivious tp what;s going on can and do cause serious damage too | |||
"I do wish the government would do more for cyclists with regards to cycle paths. They're always moaning that Britain is getting fat, and that's true: but they make gym memberships expensive, close council-owned gyms and swimming pools, and don't build cycle paths for cyclists to safely use. We then end up with this argument coming up left and right, and drivers complaining about cyclists and vice versa. Somewhere in the country, over £6,000,000 was recently spent turning a dis-used railway bridge into a cycle path (info from Rail magazine)! If a railway preservation group wanted to re-open that as a stretch of railway they would have spent years trying to raise the money. They probably wouldn`t even bother to make a serious survey into it. Same thing has happened local to me on the former S&D near Blanford, Dorset. Sustrans paid for the majority of the work with County Council chipping in. Many cyclists complained the Council made a bodge of the surface as they were sliding and getting punctures. Turns out surface was exactly as Sustrans planned it to be so to slow down cyclists and make it safer for walkers.
And then People wonder why cyclists don't want to use it i bet. Imagine if the m6 toll road advertised itself as being slower than the m6...
Funny thing is, only riders of cycles with what I would call "race track" tyres are the only ones who had problems! Those who rode traditional or mountain bikes had no problem at all! They just rode according to the conditions and had "proper" tyres!"There is nothing wrong with riding on Hutchinson 18/19mm tyres, they maybe like razor blades but they do work well. | |||
| |||
"Rule 213 also very useful. Very true, it seems to me that the Highway Code is as contradictory as the bible. Because it is a compilation of Statute Law & suggestions of good practice, which is why some rules state "you should/should not" & others "YOU MUST/MUST NOT" in bold. Each rule covers several scenarios & is linked to one or more scenarios from one or more rules. This is an attempt to show that each situation is different & should be resolved by the methods shown by linking the scenarios together. Hmm, that made sense in my head but not sure now ive typed it out! I do understand that and honestly I think people need to pay way more attention the the HC, I could fill a whole forum thread with things that bug me with roads and the people that use them, and it may surprise some that most are aimed at motorists, I think it was you who said about fog lights yesterday. Like I've already said I think cycling training is great and to a degree would be great if they could licence it (not easy to police) because as others have said before it's always the minority who spoil it for the majority. Can't be licensed without a major change in several laws, if licenses for cyclists are to be imposed then it would mean likewise for horses AND pedestrians! Don't know about you but I can't imagine anyone wanting a license to walk on the public highway. As it is currently Case Law,Statute Law & International Treaty you can see why it won't be considered by the lawmakers. There are lots of encouragement ideas around to increase the uptake of cycle training although I must admit I don't know how/if bikeability level 1 is delivered in schools. Oh I don't think it could happen and it never would. But I don't understand why if cyclists are licensed pedestrians need to be? I can understand with horses though. My reasoning is a bike, car, motor cycle and horse can cause serious damage if operated/handled correctly. as someone else commented a bike is still a vehicle and thus should be treated like one. Pedestrians with headphones on and engrossed in their phones oblivious tp what;s going on can and do cause serious damage too" | |||
| |||
| |||
"Cyclists I regard them as mud flaps or piss flaps . Always cutting in or out. No regard for anyone else on the road . That's my rant out the way " But it's okay for you to have no regard for some other road users? | |||
"Cyclists I regard them as mud flaps or piss flaps . Always cutting in or out. No regard for anyone else on the road . That's my rant out the way But it's okay for you to have no regard for some other road users? " Why bother? Just another bile-filled rant with no basis in truth. | |||
"I can't believe people care so much about this "They are just looking at the Highway Code which is not a definitive guide of how to behave in the road ( it's more designed for children) And quoting paragraphs to highlight their own feelings . | |||
| |||
"I can't believe people care so much about this
They are just looking at the Highway Code which is not a definitive guide of how to behave in the road ( it's more designed for children)
And quoting paragraphs to highlight their own feelings .
"simple answer would be don't follow the thread if your not interested in it. | |||
"I can't believe people care so much about this
They are just looking at the Highway Code which is not a definitive guide of how to behave in the road ( it's more designed for children)
And quoting paragraphs to highlight their own feelings .
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. this is taken from the Highway code website, still think it is a guide???? | |||
"I can't believe people care so much about this
They are just looking at the Highway Code which is not a definitive guide of how to behave in the road ( it's more designed for children)
And quoting paragraphs to highlight their own feelings .
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence.
this is taken from the Highway code
website, still think it is a guide????
"Which is why there is the theory test, all the questions on that are answered in the Highway Code. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
