Priorities of road users to be changed to place responsibility on those that pose the greatest danger to others.

[LSWR Cavalier]

Does black not heat up more?. ..
Have I solved the puzzle why ineos grenadiers did not win this year?

 

[AM9]

They then sold that kit to the MAMILs I see riding around the Surrey Hills though

And ...

 

[Meerkat]

And ...

So they have encouraged MAMILs to wear dangerous outfits!

 

[AM9]

So they have encouraged MAMILs to wear dangerous outfits!

They have marketed the current kit of the Sky team. Various people choose to buy them. Some choose to wear them when cycling on busy roads. They aren't invisible, any more than a black motorcyclist, a pedestrian wearing dark clothes or even black cars. It's up to drivers to only put their vehicle where they can see there is space on a public road where cyclists can ride, - and not victim blame injured cyclists for wearing the wrong colour clothes. Cyclists don't have to wear hi-vis clothing in the Netherlands.

 

[ashkeba]

Nobody really looks good in cycling lycra, even people who have a cycling body! It is purely practical clothing, and so making it a bright colour would improve that practicality.

I am not wearing special cycling clothing. That is worn by people who want to wear driving gloves and train journey hats when in those vehicles.

 

[Meerkat]

It's up to drivers to only put their vehicle where they can see there is space on a public road where cyclists can ride, - and not victim blame injured cyclists for wearing the wrong colour clothes. Cyclists don't have to wear hi-vis clothing in the Netherlands.

Utility cyclists can wear what they like. Buying clothing specifically to wear on your bike and then choosing black is ridiculous.

 

[miami]

Utility cyclists can wear what they like. Buying clothing specifically to wear on your bike and then choosing black is ridiculous.

This is Mercedes' current F1 car. According to sky sports it looks really good.

I suspect that's why people choose black clothes to wear, they think it looks really good.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

When driving in the Surrey Hills or anywhere else you must drive at a speed such that you can stop in half the distance you can see to be clear. Or slower, that is even better.

One must reckon with 'hazards' such as fallen branches, escaped black cows, horses etc

 

[Ediswan]

When driving in the Surrey Hills or anywhere else you must drive at a speed such that you can stop in half the distance you can see to be clear. Or slower, that is even better.

Where do you get that from? Rule 126 of the UK HIghway Code states "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear". No "must", no "half".

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

No "should" either. I remember that text from learning many years ago, perhaps it was changed. Apparently you should reckon with meeting a vehicle coming the other way on a single track Road, as many are in the Surrey Hills.
..
Just read up on team sky. It has been 'ineos' for two years, 'grenadier' is an off-road motor vehicle being promoted by our cycling heroes. Seems inappropriate.

 

[miami]

No "should" either. I remember that text from learning many years ago, perhaps it was changed.

Again highlighting how dangerous it is for people who passed their test in the days of manual chokes to be on the road without looking a highway code since then.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Again highlighting how dangerous it is for people who passed their test in the days of manual chokes to be on the road without looking a highway code since then.

Yes, a manual choke but no double-declutching. Seems good if I drive to a higher/safer standard than required.

 

[Meerkat]

When driving in the Surrey Hills or anywhere else you must drive at a speed such that you can stop in half the distance you can see to be clear. Or slower, that is even better.

One must reckon with 'hazards' such as fallen branches, escaped black cows, horses etc

The whole issue is that you think it is clear until you realise there is a skinny bloke wearing black hiding in a dark shadow.
I did drive accordingly because I knew, as a daily commuter, that the idiots might well be there. The van drivers following their sat nav wouldn’t have a clue.

 

[miami]

Seems good if I drive to a higher/safer standard than required.

We've already established you have a limited knowlege of road related laws

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, a manual choke but no double-declutching. Seems good if I drive to a higher/safer standard than required.

It does if you actually are doing. However driving at 50mph on a clear motorway, or joining one at a speed below that of the traffic on it already, is not driving to a higher/safer standard than required. At best it's neutral, at worst it's dangerous.

 

[ashkeba]

The whole issue is that you think it is clear until you realise there is a skinny bloke wearing black hiding in a dark shadow.
I did drive accordingly because I knew, as a daily commuter, that the idiots might well be there. The van drivers following their sat nav wouldn’t have a clue.

If you can't see clear road in a dark shadow, you aren't seeing it's clear so slow down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you can't see clear road in a dark shadow, you aren't seeing it's clear so slow down.

Theoretically, but you'd spend a lot of time stationary if you did take that approach, so sometimes assumptions have to be made with the foot hovering by the brake. It's similar to pulling out of a blind driveway or junction. Road traffic is an imperfect situation (which is why it's so difficult to automate it).

 

[Meerkat]

If you can't see clear road in a dark shadow, you aren't seeing it's clear so slow down.

You are seeing it’s ‘clear’.
We aren’t talking about round a blind corner, we are talking about seeing the road and everything but the camouflaged cyclist. I knew what I was looking for because I had been surprised by one of the morons before, but most drivers wouldn’t expect a cyclist to be that negligent when they are so at risk.
You can’t smugly claim you are acting within your rights when you are dead.
The ones with some sense had a flashing rear light, but I guess some don’t want the extra weight on their five grand bit of carbon fibre (Personally I don’t get why you would spend so much money making something you do for exercise fractionally easier, but each to their own…..)

 

[Peter Sarf]

Ah, somebody that seems to agree with my approach to crossing use. It's easy enough to look like you are committed to crossing without putting yourself at a high risk. Sometimes it's easy to spot a non-stopper coming and often I will take a step away from the kerb and then move fairly purposefully towards it. No driver (apart from a mobile sociopath) would even consider the option of deliberately hitting somebody on a Zebra or a controlled crossing, so it is just the self-entitled and the impatient drivers that need to be dealt with.

Well "self entitled and the impatient drivers". There are pedestrians and cyclists like that as well.... Problem is that all of them are humans and some humans are less patient and feel more entitled than other humans do. I think a lot of accidents are caused by impatience. Then there are the genuine errors - a smaller vehicle (or pedestrian) is going to be easier to overlook. It is not that the driver of a larger object is sinning it is just that smaller objects are easier to overlook. I have seen a lot of near misses caused by a drivers, cyclists and pedestrians using a mobile phone.

If you want to play chicken you have to pretend you aren’t looking at the traffic!
As a cyclist I always try to get eye contact with drivers in side roads etc - they seem much less likely to cut you up once you have that.

I have had someone pull out in front of me when I was in my car. Very noticeable how they avoided looking my way.

I cycle around 150km per week, I also find that the majority of road users are perfectly fine. It is just a shame that the aggressive ones stand out in my mind.

You get a few that catch you out (but their actions are positive) such as flashing to let you turn right but you have already stopped it really hurts if they were flashing for another reason. Some of the readers of this thread will know Coppers Green Lane (Between WGC and St Albans). Some motorists will overtake you on the double white lines, illegal of course but as both me and them can clearly see nothing is coming the other way I have no issue with this.

My biggest pet hate is when motorist block you from progressing when you are not impacting them. I have lost count of the amount of times I have got overtaken, then needed to stop 10m later as the motorist is turning right, or more commonly they can't pass the multiple parked cars where I can as I can just keep riding without crossing the centre line.

I tend not to force my way into the boxes at the traffic lights in towns such as St Albans that are designed to protect cyclist, as again some motorist don't seem to like this. Passing on the left is never a good idea anyway.

As I have said the law itself won't alter behaviors but will help with prosecutions if required should something go wrong. I tend to cycle slowly on town centers as pedestrians do step right out in front of you (as they do EVs). Others don't. I certainly don't like red light jumpers as it gives us all a bad reputation. On most debates covering this topic you get the following.

• Cyclists should pay VED
• Cyclists should be insured.
• Cyclists jump red lights
• Cyclists should be trained
• Cyclists should have MOT
• Cyclists should not be on the road when a cycle path exists.

Most of these arguments are destroyed by other people on the discussion groups. The training is interesting as you only pass your driving test once, it doesn't mean you are a good drive 5 years later so unless people proposing this also cover retesting drivers I suspect this will go quiet quickly.

I am hoping that it helps the horse riders a lot, as they will also be protected by this change. But sadly they will still be passed too close and too fast by some.

Again highlighting how dangerous it is for people who passed their test in the days of manual chokes to be on the road without looking a highway code since then.

It would make sense for car & lorry drivers to take a test every five years. That might reduce the number of cars on the road as well as improving driving standards. But by the same token I would expect cyclists to take a test at least once. That is so that they have the understanding of the road. Mind you a persistently bad car or lorry driver will lose their licence. I am not aware of a cyclist being legally prevented from using their cycle. !.

Do you not have to apply the brake if dazzled while driving in this country then?

I don't think it is as extreme as being dazzled. It is just that the second bike was not noticeable. Its all about contrast but I seem to recall there is a limit to how bright car headlamps can be to prevent oncoming cars being dazzled. So the same could/should apply to cycles.

I have to admit I do not have lights on my bike, however I never cycle in the dark or during inclement weather. I do wear a bright yellow luminous top, and I too am aghast at the cyclists, often with far more expensive bikes than me, and going much faster, who think that all-black clothing is suitable.

As a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist, I try and consider others when out and about, and to be fair most do reciprocate. There are always those who think the rules do not apply to them, so changing the rules won't make much difference to them !

That is my approach. It is why I avoid making cars stop if I can avoid it. It is also why I give way to other road users if I can.

 

[The Ham]

When I was younger I drive a smaller car and found that I would be not noticed by other drivers almost as much as I was when cycling.

This meant that I learnt to be a defensive driver, which has served me well.

Although I do suspect that there's an element of "I can get away with it so will" as my sister-in-law drives a fairly small car with a dash cam and finds that drivers start of driving one way until they clock the dash cam.

 

[Failed Unit]

The closest I got to taking a test was the cycling test ran by the police when I was 9. It was a big deal to have it. But yes I could cause a serious injury by dangerous cycling and be back on the road the next day doing the same thing. I would not disagree the law does need to change here. But then you see a lot of stories with disqualified drivers that continue driving.

 

[miami]

I could cause a serious injury by dangerous cycling and be back on the road the next day doing the same thing

Only if the police didn't arrest you.

It would make sense for car & lorry drivers to take a test every five years

Assuming everyone took 1 test and passed it, that would be an extra 6 million tests a year. There are currently 850k tests a year performed, so a 7-fold increase

That isn't going to happen. However a free mandatory online theory test every few years, perhaps with online course covering the sort of material you see on a speed awareness course, would ensure that people are aware of new laws. Commercial drivers have to do a day of CPC training every year. Setting aside a couple of hours every few years to keep your license seems a reasonable change.

The goal wouldn't be to stop the million uninsured/unlicensed drivers out there, it would be to increase training for the vast majority of license holders who think they are safe drivers, but haven't looked at a highway code for decades.

 

[krus_aragon]

Interesting - I thought it was illegal (or perhaps just not allowed !) to ride two abreast. Riding two abreast is not necessary to avoid cars squeezing past. All the cyclist has to do is ride a good distance from the curb. The cyclist can then move over towards the curb if they feel the car/lorry is too close.

See rule 66, which says cyclists *should* not ride more than two abreast, implying that up to two is permitted. (That's not a *must*, so not a legal limit, from what I can see.)

Thing is how many cyclists read the highway code ?. My parents made myself and my sister do a cycling proficiency course back in about 1970. That actually prepared me to learn to drive a car about ten years later and also was valuable for riding a motorcycling.

I never did a cycling proficient course, but I was the kind of nerdy kid that read my mum's highway code book when she was learning to drive. (I also owned an I Spy book "On the roads and Motorways", when I lived nearly 100 miles from a motorway!)

I drifted away from cycling as a teenager, and didn't come back to it until my 20s, by which time I'd passed my driving test and got a lot more on-road experience. That definitely made me a better cyclist than if I'd kept pedalling throughout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Riding two abreast on a full width single carriageway is helpful, as the thing to overtake is shorter than if they were riding single file. You need to partly occupy the other lane to overtake with a suitable gap anyway (you should never "squeeze past"), so it is not a problem to go fully into that lane to pass two.

 

[Failed Unit]

That is actually one of the proposed changes to the highway code, you can ride 3, 4 or even 5 abreast if the road is wide enough. For exactly the reason Blethleyite says. They are viewing it as you over take a tractor so why not a group of cyclists. I am not sure myself about this one, I get that passing 4 bikes in a line can result in the seeing a car coming the other way and just turning into the bikes, but if the road is that wide they can often pass a single bike without impacting the traffic in the opposite direction at all. For some reason bikes seem to irritate motorists more than caravans for example which are actually much harder to overtake.

Only if the police didn't arrest you.

The driver that hit me was free to continue driving the day after. They were charged and convicted with Dangerous driving, 6 points on their license and a slap on the wrist. (small fine) But they are back on the road again and hopefully will take more care next time.

 

[Ediswan]

That is actually one of the proposed changes to the highway code, you can ride 3, 4 or even 5 abreast if the road is wide enough. For exactly the reason Blethleyite says. They are viewing it as you over take a tractor so why not a group of cyclists. I am not sure myself about this one, I get that passing 4 bikes in a line can result in the seeing a car coming the other way and just turning into the bikes, but if the road is that wide they can often pass a single bike without impacting the traffic in the opposite direction at all. For some reason bikes seem to irritate motorists more than caravans for example which are actually much harder to overtake.

Riding as a bunch 'like a tractor' has been common practice for years, for the reason stated. Riding in a long single line, expecting motorists to pass all the cycles in one go, is just plain anti-social. Much better to split into smaller bunches and leave decent size gaps in between.

 

[Bikeman78]

Riding two abreast on a full width single carriageway is helpful, as the thing to overtake is shorter than if they were riding single file. You need to partly occupy the other lane to overtake with a suitable gap anyway (you should never "squeeze past"), so it is not a problem to go fully into that lane to pass two.

I genuinely don't get why drivers get so wound up about cyclists. When I drive, it's rare to catch up a cyclist and usually possible to overtake safely within seconds. I'm more likely to catch up a vehicle going slightly slower than me which is more difficult to overtake.

 

[Failed Unit]

I genuinely don't get why drivers get so wound up about cyclists. When I drive, it's rare to catch up a cyclist and usually possible to overtake safely within seconds. I'm more likely to catch up a vehicle going slightly slower than me which is more difficult to overtake.

The seem to see us all as red light jumpers, but I agree I don't know why we are the enemy. Even on a single track road I will pull over and let a car past as soon as I get to some tarmac wide enough to let them by safely, which is normally in under 1 minute. They would be stuck behind a tractor on such a road for much longer. (or someone doing 40mph on a normal A road in heavy traffic when the maximum speed is 60mph)

 

[Meerkat]

I genuinely don't get why drivers get so wound up about cyclists. When I drive, it's rare to catch up a cyclist and usually possible to overtake safely within seconds. I'm more likely to catch up a vehicle going slightly slower than me which is more difficult to overtake.

Round here the grumpiness is more out in the countryside.
The roads are narrow and twisty and you can be stuck behind bikes for ages and ages. They are slower than a tractor/caravan etc, particularly up hill.
Since the Olympics etc the Surrey Hills have hundreds of MAMILs about so you can repeatedly get stuck behind them on a single trip. Some bloke in lycra out for a leisure ride is also going to get much less sympathy than a tractor going about it’s business (and the tractors are far far more likely to pull over and let you go by)

 

[miami]

Last time I was delayed by more than a minute it was a flock of sheep crossing from one field to another. It's the country, it happens. Stop being so stressed.