Cyclists - your experiences on the road

[Bletchleyite]

A very large proportion of cyclists do have insurance but don't know it. On many home insurance policies the general liability clause covers cycling. (Some policies have cover for liabilities arising from home ownership only, but plenty of them just have a general liability clause).

I have long wondered if the UK should follow Germany in it being the norm for adults to have their own general public liability insurance which would include cycling as it does walking (a pedestrian can cause an accident too). They call it Haftpflichtversicherung. You don't have to have it, but it protects you if sued for negligence in daily life.

 

[Bald Rick]

I pay £500 a year in Road Tax cyclists pay nothing and deserve everything they get,

I pay £500 a year in vehicle excise duty. I do more miles on my bike than in the cars.

I also have to had passed an test and have insurance, what does a cyclist have

I also passed my driving test, (and cycling proficiency, as it happens), and have insurance.

Surely common sense would see them wear head protection and maybe high viz clothing and maybe even use lights at night,

I always wear a helmet, always have my lights on (in daytime) and always have hi vis on in anything but dry daytime conditions in good visibility. None of things would have saved me yesterday if the 3 tonnes of pick up had been 6cm further over the wrong side of the road yesterday. What more do I need to do?

 

[Failed Unit]

That is why I took the insurance. It wasn’t that much on top of a club subscription. but covers me if I cause an accident for whatever reason. Cycling in London had a few near misses with pedestrians. But ultimately I am on the heavier machine so I need to anticipate what they will do.

I pay £500 a year in vehicle excise duty. I do more miles on my bike than in the cars.



I also passed my driving test, (and cycling proficiency, as it happens), and have insurance.




I always wear a helmet, always have my lights on (in daytime) and always have hi vis on in anything but good visibility. None of things would have saved me yesterday if the 3 tonnes of pick up had been 6cm further over yesterday. What more do I need to do?

Cycle on the footpath (as I often get told by aggressive motorist). whom I then catch up with a the next traffic jam.

 

[Bald Rick]

Cycle on the footpath (as I often get told by aggressive motorist).

Ha! Bit difficult on the road concerned yesterday - there wasn’t one!

 

[py_megapixel]

I've not been hit by a vehicle when riding a bike - though it's probably inevitable that it will happen to me at some point or other.
I have fallen off though due to black ice on a corner (I didn't realise it was there and so didn't quite slow down enough for the turn). I've also been hit by a car door opening onto one of those pavements divided into a cycle and pedestrian section by a painted line, but that didn't cause any harm to the bike, the car, or anyone involved (think it gave the person getting out a bit of a fright though, and I did stop and apologise)

The fact of the matter is that car drivers are in charge of a large metal box, sometimes weighing several tons and travelling at 30+ miles an hour. When cycling, I am in charge of a machine which is light enough for me to lift and move by hand and which rarely gets over 20. Therefore, the car is far more dangerous than the bicycle.

Cycle on the footpath (as I often get told by aggressive motorist). whom I then catch up with a the next traffic jam.

Ha! Bit difficult on the road concerned yesterday - there wasn’t one!

And in any case, it isn't even technically legal to cycle on the footpath (though sometimes it's necessary to do so anyway as there is no good alternative)

If it's safe to do so, I sometimes pull into the left and let aggressive motorists past. In an ideal world I wouldn't have to do this, but half a minute standing on the pavement is preferable to an indefinite amount of tailgating, and the knowledge that if I have to stop I will probably be knocked off.

There was one time that a motorist seemingly took offence at me pulling in like this and rather than overtaking stopped to lecture me on how I apparently "didn't know how to cycle", amusingly causing a queue of traffic to build up behind, but that was a one-off.

 

[telstarbox]

I think it's because some cyclists are morons who think they own the road. Came across a group near Wellingborough yesterday around 8 o'clock in the morning riding 3 abreast on country roads. The sooner they have to have a licence & insurance, the better.

Putting you on the ignore list for this searingly boring take

 

[JohnMcL7]

I am a cyclist but also a motorist and therefore I DO pay 'road tax'. I would imagine many adult cyclists do too.

You're right with many cyclists having car licenses and paying VED, I pay a heck of a lot more VED than many motorists because I have an older car from the pre-cheating/rule bending era (£305 for a four cylinder NA engine), I suspect it doesn't produce much more CO2 in reality but in practice it does so few miles as I do most of my miles on the bikes it's barely emitting any CO2 despite the punitive VED cost. It's not worth buying a newer car for the amount of use I get from it for a reduced VED as well as the fact the CO2 in reality won't be much lower anyway.

As well as having a car license I have a full motorbike license and a qualified cycle leader as well not that any of that stops the anti-cyclist nonsense like above.

 

[bramling]

The Guardian reports a large increase in cyclists being killed in 'accidents' in the UK. Why? More fast e-bikes, more cycling, less motor traffic (= more speeding), less enforcement?

The number of people in cars killed is greater than the number of cyclists killed. As a driver in particular I really wish the cops would do a lot more no-nonsense enforcement!

It isn’t really a surprise, unfortunately. The general standard of both driving and cycling has nosedived in recent years, and Covid has only made this worse.

Driving in the London area is a pretty unpleasant experience, especially in the evenings.

 

[stuu]

I pay £500 a year in Road Tax cyclists pay nothing and deserve everything they get

You are being defrauded then as road tax was abolished 85 years ago. I'd call the police. although making obvious threats to cyclists probably diminishes your case a little

 

[SCH117X]

Cyclists who are members of British Cycling have £15m third party liability insurance.

On the issue of riding abreast the highway code permits two cyclists to ride abreast - what might happen is two or more cyclists riding two abreast at say 14mph then get overtaken by a third cyclist doings say 15mph and for the length of the overtake it will appear to an approaching motorist that they are riding three abreast. The Highway code does not make any specifics on the matter. No doubt there are groups of cyclists who ride more than two abreast in the same way many motorists are seemingly ignorant of some specifics of the highway code.

Cycling on footpaths is permissible unless they are specifically signed to the contrary but cycling on pavements is not unless specifically directed to do so. I personally think there is a case for the latter to be reviewed as there are cases where cyclists cycle on pavements without causing problems to pedestrians; locally to me a main A road go up a relatively steep hill and is used by school children cycling to school who automatically use the pavement and if they were precluded from doing so would no doubt in the majority end in going to school by car or bus.

One positive change to signage seems to be taking place as I have seen some of the very annoying "Cyclists Dismount" signs replaced by signs worded along the lines of "Cyclists take care passing pedestrians"; one example being on the shared footway/cycle path over the River Ouse and East Coast mainline on the A1237 York northern bypass where the path/footway is not wide enough for a cyclist wheeling a bike to easily pass a pedestrian but wide enough for a cyclist to pass a pedestrian.

 

[py_megapixel]

On a slightly different topic: any drivers reading this thread, one of the most helpful things you can do beyond giving space is to use your indicators properly. That means put them on well in advance (but not so early as to cause confusion) of the pertinent manoeuvre - whether that's a turn, pulling out, leaving a roundabout or anything else. And they should be turned off once you have finished it, not before or after, including being left on a traffic lights unless it's completely and utterly unambiguous which way you're going even with the road markings covered up.

The worst thing you can do is to not use your indicators at all. It is selfish, not to mention dangerous, and I wish police would fine people for it more often (are they even allowed to currently?)

Of course, cyclists should use hand signals where possible, though on some of the pathetic infrastructure we have in this country, doing this would see you hit street furniture or passing vehicles with your arm!

 

[Techniquest]

Agreed entirely there on all points, bad signalling by drivers is extremely frustrating! The losing a limb to a streetpost or similar is certainly a risk when using arm signals on my bike, I have considered getting those indicator lights I've seen on a Deliveroo or similar bike in the past. Just not enough space on the handlebar for such a device though!

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Some experts recommend not signalling when cycling in certain situations, when turning off on the near side for example. A senior cycler told me off for that, as it might tempt a driver to overtake instead of waiting.

When driving I always signal, even if there is no-one around to see me.

 

[cactustwirly]

Sometimes cyclists don't help themselves either. Some of them are suicidal I swear, like riding your bike without lights at night, wearing black clothes. Or cycling in thick fog on a NSL road without any lights.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Sometimes cyclists don't help themselves either. Some of them are suicidal I swear, like riding your bike without lights at night, wearing black clothes. Or cycling in thick fog on a NSL road without any lights.

You can say the same for any group, there's plenty drivers and motorcyclists who don't help themselves either and put many other people's lives in danger which cyclists certainly don't yet curiously all cyclists get the blame for the few bad ones but drivers and motorcyclists don't.

 

[Bikeman78]

Sometimes cyclists don't help themselves either. Some of them are suicidal I swear, like riding your bike without lights at night, wearing black clothes. Or cycling in thick fog on a NSL road without any lights.

Talking about fog has reminded me of the time I drove home off night shift in thick fog. At a T junction a car had carried straight on into the bushes opposite. He was very lucky not to hit someone on the main road. A passing cyclist would have been severely injured at best. I couldn't see exactly where the junction was so I slowed down to an appropriate speed. The other driver evidently didn't think that was necessary.

You can say the same for any group, there's plenty drivers and motorcyclists who don't help themselves either and put many other people's lives in danger which cyclists certainly don't yet curiously all cyclists get the blame for the few bad ones but drivers and motorcyclists don't.

Exactly. If a driver hits a cyclist in fog, why is the cyclist to blame? The driver should have been driving at a speed where they could stop short of any obstruction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. If a driver hits a cyclist in fog, why is the cyclist to blame? The driver should have been driving at a speed where they could stop short of any obstruction.

If the cyclist was not displaying lights in fog then they could be seen as contributory.

 

[dm1]

Exactly. If a driver hits a cyclist in fog, why is the cyclist to blame? The driver should have been driving at a speed where they could stop short of any obstruction.

Blame is not absolute. The right question is, why is only the cyclist to blame (Hint: they're not).

Riding in thick fog without lights is monumentally stupid and neglegent, but you're right that a driver must also drive to the conditions in such a scenario.

But that brings us back to the point that ideally, anywhere where this could be an issue, there should be separate cycle infrastructure - in the long term, basically anywhere where the speed of traffic is above 20mph (30mph outside built-up areas). In the Netherlands (now very well known both for its cycle infrastructure and its road safety), a lot of changes were made when liability was introduced for those designing a road/intersection where accidents occur. It's not just about the cyclist or the car driver - the road designer also carries at least some of the blame in almost all accidents.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When driving I always signal, even if there is no-one around to see me.

I completely agree with this. Interestingly many driving instructors say "signal only when someone could benefit from it", which I believe is rubbish because you may not have seen the person who would benefit from it, whereas unless it's an ambiguous signal nobody can disbenefit from it. Therefore to me always indicate unless you could actively confuse someone by doing so. There aren't many such cases, either, the only one I can think of now is where you have two left turnings close by one another and you want the second one.

Blame is not absolute. The right question is, why is only the cyclist to blame (Hint: they're not).

Agreed that it would be shared blame if an unlit cyclist was hit by a car in fog. Were it a lit cyclist, then the car driver would be wholly to blame.

 

[Ediswan]

Interestingly many driving instructors say "signal only when someone could benefit from it", which I believe is rubbish because you may not have seen the person who would benefit from it, whereas unless it's an ambiguous signal nobody can disbenefit from it. Therefore to me always indicate unless you could actively confuse someone by doing so. There aren't many such cases, either, the only one I can think of now is where you have two left turnings close by one another and you want the second one.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) used to hold the first position I have highlighted. I never agreed with that, for much the same reason as you. The IAM have changed to more like the second position highlighted.

The specific situation you quote is almost covered by rule 103. I am reasonably sure my instructor mentioned both.

make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down

 

[Gloster]

My attitude as a pedestrian to cycling on the pavement is quite simple: don’t. You are travelling a lot faster than other users and quite possibly silently: I know you can use a bell, but nowadays too many either can’t be bothered or leave it to the last second. Cyclists are too prone to come up behind somebody totally unaware of their presence and try to get past without slowing down to any noticeable extent, even if the pavement is narrow. Pedestrians don’t have mirrors. (I may not cycle anymore, but I used to do a lot in my youth. I am fully in agreement that the attitude of car drivers towards cyclists has become much less considerate. At the same time there are more thoughtless cyclists, but the numbers are still pretty small.)

As far as drivers indicating, I was taught in the early eighties always to do so, both so that it was automatic and because you could never be quite certain that someone might appear or had been overlooked. At the same time you should not be too automatic: always think about when you indicate, so as to avoid causing a misunderstanding.

 

[Falcon1200]

But that brings us back to the point that ideally, anywhere where this could be an issue, there should be separate cycle infrastructure - in the long term, basically anywhere where the speed of traffic is above 20mph (30mph outside built-up areas).

I agree with that, partially ! I try and keep to quiet back roads in the countryside where the speed limit is the national one, ie 60mph (whether the road is actually suitable for that is another matter....), but certainly in busier areas separation of cyclists and pedestrians is preferable, although not always possible. And where it is done, new problems are created; The pavement outside my Mum's house has recently been designated a shared path with cyclists, with the result that she takes her life into her hands every time she ventures beyond her gate, with kids, and adults, flying past at high speed. Personally I dislike, as both a pedestrian and cyclist, shared paths, for the reasons mentioned here and above.

 

[SynthD]

Yes, I've seen some hedges that the council should have reduced before putting a shared path there. It's poor visibility for the permitted and popular use of the path.

 

[Techniquest]

I share the concern about hedgerows alongside shared-use paths. I suspect a few motorists will have been displeased by my using the road on the trek into Shrewsbury itself this afternoon. There was a shared-use path alongside said road, by the time I saw it I'd passed the access point.

Worth noting there seems to be lots of shared-use paths on the outskirts of Shrewsbury, which is good to see. For less confident riders, such paths must be amazing. I'm a little more advanced than that, confidence wise, so I'm more likely to be found on the roads. My view is it provides more space for pedestrians, who have no alternative. In some parts of Hereford, I do use shared-use paths regularly I must confess, but only on occasion and if the alternative road journey is much less ideal. I'd be here all day going on about that though!

What got me replying though is that part of this particular shared-use path I noticed was really overgrown, to the point that a pedestrian would have struggled to get by. It makes one wonder how often these paths get maintained.

While I'm here, much kudos to most HGV drivers I saw today on the A49. All bar one gave me suitable space and overtook sensibly. The exception tried to overtake me on a narrow bridge, at the top of a climb, and shortly after they certainly came close enough for me to touch the side of the trailer easily. Thankfully, I'm a fairly confident rider, others would have been shaken up a lot more than me.

If no other time had me wanting one, this was a time I'd have really found a helmet camera useful...

 

[SCH117X]

I got some idiot of a pedestrian yesterday refusing to let to me pass "Its a footpath you shouldn't be cycling" - said footpath has blue Cycle + pedestrian signs at either end, forms part of the National Cycle Network and is named as The Beryl Burton Cycleway - aside from commenting to him it was a cycleway maybe I should have suggested he seriously needed to visit an opticians.

 

[londonbridge]

I've not been hit by a vehicle when riding a bike - though it's probably inevitable that it will happen to me at some point or other.
I have fallen off though due to black ice on a corner (I didn't realise it was there and so didn't quite slow down enough for the turn). I've also been hit by a car door opening onto one of those pavements divided into a cycle and pedestrian section by a painted line, but that didn't cause any harm to the bike, the car, or anyone involved (think it gave the person getting out a bit of a fright though, and I did stop and apologise)

I'm obviously missing something here, why did YOU apologise, surely the person getting out of the car should have checked before opening the door?

 

[py_megapixel]

I'm obviously missing something here, why did YOU apologise, surely the person getting out of the car should have checked before opening the door?

It wasn't very clear that cycling was permitted on that section of pavement (faded markings and poor signage) and I was going quite quickly. With hindsight it would have made sense for me to slow down a bit while passing the car doors.

 

[AM9]

It wasn't very clear that cycling was permitted on that section of pavement (faded markings and poor signage) and I was going quite quickly. With hindsight it would have made sense for me to slow down a bit while passing the car doors.

The onus is still on the person opening a vehicle door onto another space, - there might have been a child or even a pedestrian passing that they hadn't seen.
Such is the public's conditioning now that the motor vehicle users are assumed to have priority over space that is specifically provided for non-motorists.

 

[ashkeba]

Riding in thick fog without lights is monumentally stupid and neglegent, but you're right that a driver must also drive to the conditions in such a scenario.

I turn my lights off while cycling in fog sometimes because I do not want Cambridge's terrible drivers to attempt to follow me onto a cycleway, or to overtake to the right of me when I am on a 2way cycleway on the right of the road. And I bet one would!

 

[cyclebike]

There was a shared-use path alongside said road, by the time I saw it I'd passed the access point.

This is an annoyance of mine. I frequently cycle in new places, and am happy to use a decent off-road cycle path if one is provided. So often, however, the path only becomes apparent after I have missed the sole opportunity to easily access it from the road. I would appreciate it if more access points to these paths could be provided from the road (or maybe more signage on the road indicating an upcoming cycle path), for "out of town" cyclists!
And I then continue down the road pursued by motorists no doubt thinking "why isn't this idiot on the cycle path"...!