Amendment to the highway code for all junctions.

[MR. FUSION]

I'm not defending law breaking cyclists but the consequences of cyclists breaking the law are rarely as significant as car drivers who break the law

The consequence of running a red light can end in death or injury of a cyclist, and I see them do that frequently.

 

[MattR]

The consequence of running a red light can end in death or injury of a cyclist, and I see them do that frequently.

Yes. But compare the number of car drivers who break the law who maim or kill compared too cyclists who break the law.

 

[MR. FUSION]

Yes. But compare the number of car drivers who break the law who maim or kill compared too cyclists who break the law.

When cyclists and their cycles are properly registered on a national database and identifiable for the purposes of the law you can the compare like with like, until then no comparison is possible at all.....

 

[Silver-Fox]

It is quite amazing how many drivers assume that all cyclists have not been trained and do not pay road tax.Every cyclist I know has passed a driving test (I also did my cycling proficiency test at school) and owns a car and pays road tax.

Does make you wonder why so many cyclists act like total tos*ers then having passed a test.
Yes many cyclists do own a car and pay rfd.
I have to pay rfd for each vehicle I own along with insurance for each.
I see no reason why a cycle should not be registered and insured.

 

[MattR]

When cyclists and their cycles are properly registered on a national database and identifiable for the purposes of the law you can the compare like with like, until then no comparison is possible at all.....

Comparisons are clear. If you choose to put an obstacle in the way, you can but it does not stop the comparison; many more people are killed or maimed by vehicles when they break the law compared to cyclists.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MR. FUSION]

Comparisons are clear. If you choose to put an obstacle in the way, you can but it does not stop the comparison; many more people are killed or maimed by vehicles when they break the law compared to cyclists.

It's not an obstacle, it's logic, unless a cyclist is physically apprehended there is no recording of their crime, there is no way to identify a cyclist on camera ANPR or any other way to report speeding or other offences.

 

[barsteward]

Please direct me to the legislation that you would like to see "enforced"?

No legislation as such but a little common sense for all including pedestrians who seem to be sadly lacking in representation these days ......I drive. ride a motorcycle, ride a push bike, and walk and as such have no axe to grind with any particular group other than the selfish, of which there are many.

 

[MattR]

It's not an obstacle, it's logic, unless a cyclist is physically apprehended there is no recording of their crime, there is no way to identify a cyclist on camera ANPR or any other way to report speeding or other offences.

I am referring to the consequences; plenty of all road users break the law but when they cause a collision, the consequences from a car or lorry collision are more significant than those caused by cyclists. Cars drivers are (or should be) licenced and have registration numbers but that does not stop them causing 17,636 serious injuries or deaths over the last 5 years

 

[Northernraider]

I do, and as the duty is based on emissions I think you'll find that every cyclist pays what they owe.

They may say it's based on emmisions but we all know that's the biggest croc of crap ever.

Otherwise my 2.8 diesel motorhome wouldn't be less to tax than my 1.4 petrol car

And landrover vans with the same engine and emissions as a landrover 7 seater wouldn't be 400 quid cheaper.

It's a money earner pure and simple it's got nowt to do with emissions

 

[Northernraider]

So why is the amount you pay based on the vehicle emissions?

It isn't

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Paddywack]

It isn't

Oh yes it is Broken Link Removed

 

[Northernraider]

Oh yes it is Broken Link Removed

Like I said that may be the bull they feed the public
Bit it's been proven to be nonsense

I've had two vehicles with the same engine and same emmisions at the same time
Same year only difference one is a car and one is a van both Renault with 1.5dci engine
Car £30 pa van £186 pa

Its nonsense

 

[John65]

As i see it push bikes have been around probably longer than motor vehicles and up to the last few years both bikes and vehicles have got along ok. The problem now seems to be a lot of cyclists ride with no thought for their own safety. Riding 2 abreast on most roads can cause unnecessary problems for motor vehicles. If a motor vehicle and a cyclist have a mishap without doubt the cyclist will come of worst so why don’t they try to ride sensibly. We live on the tour de Yorkshire route and most weekends are inundated with Lycra clad numties riding 2 or 3 abreast who think they are entitled to hold up traffic.

 

[hilldweller]

Lycra clad numties riding 2 or 3 abreast who think they are entitled to hold up traffic.

It has been said on here that this is the "official" safe way to ride. Single and a car will push you off to get past but they don't normally go for mass murder.

It does make sense to a cyclist.

I think it is acceptable only if the "Lycra clad numpty" is a fit female.

 

[Paddywack]

We live on the tour de Yorkshire route and most weekends are inundated with Lycra clad numties riding 2 or 3 abreast who think they are entitled to hold up traffic

Take two minutes to understand WHY cyclists ride two abreast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGRQgw6PDA

Hint, it's not to hold up traffic, its self preservation.

Out of interest how much space do you give to horseriders?

And if you live in North Yorkshire, part of being that lucky in life is to share this fabulous landscape with others. And just wait until next year and the World Championships is on!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Northernraider]

It has been said on here that this is the "official" safe way to ride. Single and a car will push you off to get past but they don't normally go for mass murder.

It does make sense to a cyclist.

I think it is acceptable only if the "Lycra clad numpty" is a fit female.

Riding two abreast may be safer in town where the traffic is slower and usually a lot easier to see. But on country roads etc with hidden bends and other hazards I think it's madness for cyclists to be cycling 2 and 3 abreast ...it is basically an accident waiting to happen.
In the UK I personally wouldn't cycle on the roads.
I enjoyed my bike in Spain and Portugal much better cycle paths and a better attitude to cyclists than there is here.
Even riding the scooter there was far far better.

Comparing cyclists to motorcyclists though is a waste of time ...I'm both and because I've done motorbike training and passed a test I ride defensively and I'm far more alert and aware to hazards than your average cyclist.

I also have power to get myself out the way of potential dangers....don't have that on a bicycle.

I think the biggest problem with some cyclists is they have that attitude of I'm right regardless of whether they are causing obstructions etc.

But as others have said the motorist has much better protection so really it's madness to go head to head with one on a bike.

Same think when you see young ones walking out in front of cars with the attitude of they will stop for me

No good when in hospital or the cemetery

 

[Silver-Fox]

Out of interest how much space do you give to horseriders?

It’s rare to see them riding two abreast

 

[Paddywack]

It’s rare to see them riding two abreast

My point was that one horse rider in the primary position is as wide as two cyclists.

 

[Paddywack]

But on country roads etc with hidden bends and other hazards I think it's madness for cyclists to be cycling 2 and 3 abreast ...it is basically an accident waiting to happen.

Watch the video and then tell us if you stand by that statement

 

[maxi77]

Riding two abreast may be safer in town where the traffic is slower and usually a lot easier to see. But on country roads etc with hidden bends and other hazards I think it's madness for cyclists to be cycling 2 and 3 abreast ...it is basically an accident waiting to happen.

If you are driving on a road at a speed where you cannot avoid hidden dangers, could be a cyclist, horse and rider or worst for the driver a tractor then at best you are driving without due care and attention. Other road users have a right to expect you repeat you to drive properly and not to endanger them by your selfishness and lack of care.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Northernraider]

If you are driving on a road at a speed where you cannot avoid hidden dangers, could be a cyclist, horse and rider or worst for the driver a tractor then at best you are driving without due care and attention. Other road users have a right to expect you repeat you to drive properly and not to endanger them by your selfishness and lack of care.

If you are driving on a road at a speed where you cannot avoid hidden dangers, could be a cyclist, horse and rider or worst for the driver a tractor then at best you are driving without due care and attention. Other road users have a right to expect you repeat you to drive properly and not to endanger them by your selfishness and lack of care.

And i have a right to expect a slow moving vehicle to stay in as close to the kerb as possible.

On a country road with no pavements you wouldn't get pedestrians walking along 2 or 3 abreast and if you did you would be sure to see them moving in to the side when a car makes to pass. Not continue waking along expecting the car to go fully in to the other lane to avoid them....it's called self preservation and being courtious.

It shouldn't always be down to the vehicle driver to be inconvenienced or responsible for someone else's safety. It's a lot easier to pass a single cyclist safely than it is to pass 2 or 3.

I've also always witnessed horse riders move closer to the kerb and go single file when cars are approaching

It's only cyclists that don't.

Cyclists and pedestrians are treated the same as in they don't pay insurance to cover third parties when they cause an accident

 

[Paddywack]

And i have a right to expect a slow moving vehicle to stay in as close to the kerb as possible.

I'd suggest that you give others rights some consideration? You might also like to read up on what the police advice is as to riding in the gutter versus the primary position. https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/shop/product/roadcraft-police-drivers-handbook-pdf

 

[gus-lopez]

Like I said that may be the bull they feed the public
Bit it's been proven to be nonsense

I've had two vehicles with the same engine and same emmisions at the same time
Same year only difference one is a car and one is a van both Renault with 1.5dci engine
Car £30 pa van £186 pa

Its nonsense

A chap on a forum I use has 2 landrovers. old ones. ! is a swb station wagon & the other a single cab pick up,Both are identical engine wise & by some quirk they were built one chassis number apart. One is allowed into the London emission zone & the other is illegal. It's all nonsense.

Out of interest how much space do you give to horseriders?

I move on to the other side of the road completely & slow down to walking pace.
I like horses.

It’s rare to see them riding two abreast

My point was that one horse rider in the primary position is as wide as two cyclists.

Not if you live near racing stables
Where I lived in Devon it was common to come round a blind bend & find 20 millions worth of thorougbreds walking towards you blocking both lanes.

Cyclists and pedestrians are treated the same as in they don't pay insurance to cover third parties when they cause an accident

No You have to sue them.

 

[Jasz]

It’s rare to see them riding two abreast

They normally ride 2 abreast on the lanes near us. Like the majority of cyclists they will make space for a car to pass as soon as they are at a safe place for the car to pass.
Cyclists don't want a car passing where there could be another coming the other way either!

 

[gus-lopez]

You might also like to read up on what the police advice is as to riding in the gutter

That is where you were taught to drive , as far left as possible & in London that meant gdunk,gdunk,gdunk over the kerb gutters. If its ok for me I can't see why it isn't for anyone else.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Northernraider]

I'd suggest that you give others rights some consideration?

As should cyclists

Most do


A lot don't hence the reason we now have a situation where vehicle drivers get annoyed with them.

 

[Northernraider]

They normally ride 2 abreast on the lanes near us. Like the majority of cyclists they will make space for a car to pass as soon as they are at a safe place for the car to pass.
Cyclists don't want a car passing where there could be another coming the other way either!

Some do

But as you can see from a few commenters or here others don't and feel they shouldnt have to.

Which is the attitude folk get annoyed at because they don't give a monkey's if they have 20 cars behind them being held up or not.

 

[Paddywack]

But as you can see from a few commenters or here others don't and feel they shouldnt have to.

No, what the "pro-cyclists" on here are saying is that they should only have to move over when THEY feel it is safe for you to pass. And judging by the reaction from some of the "pro-motorists" on here, I don't think you can blame them.

Yes it may hold you up for a minute but it will just be a minute less that you have to sit at the next crossroads, is your time so important that you're happy to risk someone's life? I note that you state that "I enjoyed my bike in Spain and Portugal much better cycle paths and a better attitude to cyclists than there is here." - the better attitude in most european countries is because if you hit a cyclist in a car you are deemed to be at fault and drivers consequently give cyclist space. https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/medi...ccidents-and-presumed-liability-uk-vs-europe/

 

[Northernraider]

No, what the "pro-cyclists" on here are saying is that they should only have to move over when THEY feel it is safe for you to pass. And judging by the reaction from some of the "pro-motorists" on here, I don't think you can blame them.

Yes it may hold you up for a minute but it will just be a minute less that you have to sit at the next crossroads, is your time so important that you're happy to risk someone's life? I note that you state that "I enjoyed my bike in Spain and Portugal much better cycle paths and a better attitude to cyclists than there is here." - the better attitude in most european countries is because if you hit a cyclist in a car you are deemed to be at fault and drivers consequently give cyclist space. https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/medi...ccidents-and-presumed-liability-uk-vs-europe/

No it's because generally the cyclists aren't nuggets

 

[gus-lopez]

the better attitude in most european countries is because if you hit a cyclist in a car you are deemed to be at fault and drivers consequently give cyclist space.

I can't see it will be long before it changes here as they now treat pedestrians the same as vehicles as in illegal crossing of the road, failing to look,breathalysers, etc,

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}