Cyclists - your experiences on the road

[Haywain]

ironic that cyclists are harping on about the Highway Code when they are the least likely to read or adhere to it.

You clearly pay little notice of general driving standards.

 

[py_megapixel]

You clearly pay little notice of general driving standards.

Didn't you know that anyone who happens to use a bicycle is, without fail, absolute vermin with no regard for any moral values or for the rule of law unless it makes them superior to everyone else: deluding themselves into thinking they are physically fit and getting in the way of the poor defenceless motor vehicle drivers, the fine, decent, upstanding citizens who are just trying to go about their daily business while being terrorised by cyclists?

[/sarcasm]

 

[adamedwards]

"Harping on about it" because when a car hit my youngest daughter and knocked her off her bike she could have been killed. And yes, hi viz, lights, etc and her right of way on the roundabout. The car driver pulling on to the roundabout simply did not see her.

So there is a massive power and danger imbalance here which the new Highway Code goes someway to addressing the issue. I have read it because like 80% of people on cycles I am also a driver.

 

[AM9]

ironic that cyclists are harping on about the Highway Code when they are the least likely to read or adhere to it.

Is it 'most' cyclists though. The cyclists that I know* have been aware of the prime position issue for decades. The update to the HC is all about educating those drivers in a more protected environment that they must consider (and act on) the vulnerability of other high users

* I am talking about leisure cyclists and those who cycle to work etc., not hard core road touring cyclists.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

One location where it is important to take up 'primary position' is where there is a pedestrian refuge in the middle of the road - the road space is often not wide enough to accommodate both a cyclist and vehicle safely. There are some particularly bad ones around here, which fail all current design standards, and not helped by the prevalence of hulking great SUVs. You get honked at, and even overtaken completely illegally on the wrong side of the island, but safety first. The new Highway Code is just formalising safe and sensible riding which many of us have practised for years.

 

[AM9]

One location where it is important to take up 'primary position' is where there is a pedestrian refuge in the middle of the road - the road space is often not wide enough to accommodate both a cyclist and vehicle safely. There are some particularly bad ones around here, which fail all current design standards, and not helped by the prevalence of hulking great SUVs. You get honked at, and even overtaken completely illegally on the wrong side of the island, but safety first. The new Highway Code is just formalising safe and sensible riding which many of us have practised for years.

Im agree. It does take some commitment to do it as there are too many drivers who think the threatening to harm cyclists by dangerous manouvers entitles them to priority. Probably they include some of the loudest objectors to the changes, thinking that it will be changed back to a free for all.

 

[SCH117X]

Crikey here go once again -its a simple fact the vast majority of cyclists are car drivers also. Yes their are some clowns like a pratt going the wrong way on one way street yesterday but then again I have seen many cars go the wrong way (or even parked facing the wrong way!)

Out on the ebike shopping this afternoon I had two drivers pasuse to let me turn right but one had plainly failed to look in their rear mirror as whilst they were turning right another car wsa going straight on on their inside . Also got the W word thrown at me by some plonker in a pick up; my sports cam mount had broken so I had stopped on a road that deserted bar the approachinhg pick up some distance away - I had retrieved the sportcam from the carriageway and was on the pavement when the clown opened his gob.

 

[Bikeman78]

Didn't you know that anyone who happens to use a bicycle is, without fail, absolute vermin with no regard for any moral values or for the rule of law unless it makes them superior to everyone else: deluding themselves into thinking they are physically fit and getting in the way of the poor defenceless motor vehicle drivers, the fine, decent, upstanding citizens who are just trying to go about their daily business while being terrorised by cyclists?

[/sarcasm]

It's funny that people get wound up about people cycling on the pavement. I've already seen three cars driving on pavements this year.

 

[SCH117X]

Cycling on a pavement IMO should be permitted in specific circumstances. Many school children cycling to school do so locally as the alternative is a very busy A road. During the 2019 UCI Championships in Harrogate non participating cyclists were instructed by the police to cycle on the pavement but to take care passing pedestrians and that worked fine.

Then there is the whole issue of is it a pavement or a shared surface. My local cycle route after crossing that A road at a signalled crossing runs along the pavement and the first part was fully painted although now has faded to be nearly invisible. No signs were put up. It then crosses the exit of a petrol station, again no signs and never have been any markings, and similarly on the pavement around a corner beyond. Locals are aware but to a visiting motorists its another cyclist cycling on the pavement and I once did got some motorist shouting at me to get on the road.

Another more recent shared paveemnt is more obvious as to the cycle half of it and is properly signed but I am pretty certain it has never been swept since it opened and someone thought it was a good idea to stick the poles for a signalled pedestrain crossing smack in the middle of cycle half meaning invariably use of the pedestrian part to some extent. I only ever use it in same direction as the immediately adjancent carriageway but it the opposite direction it ends at a pretty awkward pont to cross over and hence it quite common to see cyclists using the pavement beyond.

 

[Graham H]

Genuine question here. If I am driving my car and doing maybe 10 - 15 mph in slow traffic and am about to turn left off a road with NO separate cycle lane does a cyclist now have the right to try and undertake me and carry straight on despite the clear and obvious turn signal I am making and lack of a dedicated cycle lane ? I will of course be on the look out but this whole undertaking thing scares me as theres so many other things for all road users to try and keep an eye on. Even worse for an HGV I should imagine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Genuine question here. If I am driving my car and doing maybe 10 - 15 mph in slow traffic and am about to turn left off a road with NO separate cycle lane does a cyclist now have the right to try and undertake me and carry straight on despite the clear and obvious turn signal I am making and lack of a dedicated cycle lane ? I will of course be on the look out but this whole undertaking thing scares me as theres so many other things for all road users to try and keep an eye on. Even worse for an HGV I should imagine.

You are responsible for not hitting cyclists even if they are doing something wrong. That is what it comes down to. It is because if they hit you you might not even get a mark on your car (or at worst a bit of a scuff), but if you hit them you are likely to kill them. That means you carry greater responsibility for your actions.

But with regard to things being wrong, filtering is allowed, a cycle lane is not necessary for it to be, and motorcyclists are allowed to do it too. This is not new.

Use your left mirror and turn your head to do a blind-spot check, and you will see that nobody is there before making your turn.

Remember - it's mirror, signal, manoeuvre (though I think it should be mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre, really, because things can change quickly). Too many people think the first one is optional. A turn signal says "I wish to make this manoeuvre", it does not invoke the right to do so (unlike what far too many motorway drivers think).

With regard to large vehicles or those without all-round windows (lorries, buses and vans) CCTV is the answer, and has to come into legislation (including retrofit) sooner rather than later. It's not acceptable for vehicles to have large blind spots when the cheap and easily-retrofitted technology exists to remove them by providing an all-round CCTV view in the cab.

 

[Haywain]

Too many people think the first one is optional.

Too many think the first two are optional!

 

[Graham H]

You are responsible for not hitting cyclists even if they are doing something wrong. That is what it comes down to. It is because if they hit you you might not even get a mark on your car (or at worst a bit of a scuff), but if you hit them you are likely to kill them. That means you carry greater responsibility for your actions.

But with regard to things being wrong, filtering is allowed, a cycle lane is not necessary for it to be, and motorcyclists are allowed to do it too. This is not new.

Use your left mirror and turn your head to do a blind-spot check, and you will see that nobody is there before making your turn.

Remember - it's mirror, signal, manoeuvre (though I think it should be mirror, signal, mirror, manoeuvre, really, because things can change quickly). Too many people think the first one is optional. A turn signal says "I wish to make this manoeuvre", it does not invoke the right to do so (unlike what far too many motorway drivers think).

With regard to large vehicles or those without all-round windows (lorries, buses and vans) CCTV is the answer, and has to come into legislation (including retrofit) sooner rather than later. It's not acceptable for vehicles to have large blind spots when the cheap and easily-retrofitted technology exists to remove them by providing an all-round CCTV view in the cab.

I would suggest a certain level of responsibility on behalf of the cyclist though. Actually I just picked this up off the highway code though this might be the old version. On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
Thats seems to be a very sensible last sentence to me and puts some onus on the undertaker (ironic term !) as I am sure at the Pearly Gates St Peter would take a dim view of someone ignoring a vehicle clearly about to turn left.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would suggest a certain level of responsibility on behalf of the cyclist though. Actually I just picked this up off the highway code though this might be the old version. On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
Thats seems to be a very sensible last sentence to me and puts some onus on the undertaker (ironic term !) as I am sure at the Pearly Gates St Peter would take a dim view of someone ignoring a vehicle clearly about to turn left.

It is obviously prudent for cyclists not to go down the side of left-indicating lorries and buses due to the blind spot, because if they do they might die, and the same for cars if they have started to turn. This issue needs resolving with mandatory CCTV. Until it is, there is a need for common sense on the part of people who might be threatened by ending up there. Certainly I do when driving or cycling try not to sit wholly alongside a lorry as I know they can't see me there, I either aim to be slightly behind (visible in the mirror) or slightly in front (visible from the cab). Lorry and bus drivers can also help here by road position - if they know they are turning left shortly but joining the rear of a queue and there is no cycle lane, they can move very close to the kerb so as to prevent someone coming past on the nearside, so they will instead pass on the offside.

However, if you are driving a vehicle where you could see them, i.e. most cars, then "I can't be bothered to turn my head to do a blind spot check before turning" is no excuse at all.

Fundamentally, any driver whose first priority is not to avoid killing other road users, regardless of whether those road users are doing something wrong or not, really needs to rethink their approach. While it's a long time since I did my test, I do strongly take the view that more should be made of "defensive driving", and perhaps look at reframing the term "blame"/"fault" in insurance* alongside that.

* Perhaps the term should be something like "legally responsible", taking into account that if a driver could have avoided an accident even if it was not their insurance "fault" then if they fail to take reasonable actions to do so they do carry a level of responsibility. The Road Traffic Act simplifies a lot of things around legal responsibility for paying for collision damage in order to keep such things out of the Court system.

 

[Graham H]

It is obviously prudent for cyclists not to go down the side of left-indicating lorries and buses due to the blind spot, because if they do they might die, and the same for cars if they have started to turn. This issue needs resolving with mandatory CCTV. Until it is, there is a need for common sense on the part of people who might be threatened by ending up there. Certainly I do when driving or cycling try not to sit wholly alongside a lorry as I know they can't see me there, I either aim to be slightly behind (visible in the mirror) or slightly in front (visible from the cab). Lorry and bus drivers can also help here by road position - if they know they are turning left shortly but joining the rear of a queue and there is no cycle lane, they can move very close to the kerb so as to prevent someone coming past on the nearside, so they will instead pass on the offside.

However, if you are driving a vehicle where you could see them, i.e. most cars, then "I can't be bothered to turn my head to do a blind spot check before turning" is no excuse at all.

Fundamentally, any driver whose first priority is not to avoid killing other road users, regardless of whether those road users are doing something wrong or not, really needs to rethink their approach. While it's a long time since I did my test, I do strongly take the view that more should be made of "defensive driving", and perhaps look at reframing the term "blame"/"fault" in insurance* alongside that.

* Perhaps the term should be something like "legally responsible", taking into account that if a driver could have avoided an accident even if it was not their insurance "fault" then if they fail to take reasonable actions to do so they do carry a level of responsibility. The Road Traffic Act simplifies a lot of things around legal responsibility for paying for collision damage in order to keep such things out of the Court system.

Good discussion and I totally agree many drivers need to be more aware. I was taught (many years ago) to look in a lorry mirror and if I could see the driver in his mirror then (provided he looked !!) he could see me and I wasnt in a blind spot. I too have used the pull over to the left technique coming to a junction in order to effectively block off the opportunity to undertake. Actually I just looked at the new rules and the comment from the old code is still written in the new one and while its clear a driver should look its also pretty clear that cyclists have a responsibility too. Perhaps the hype has concentrated on the new rules too much and demonised drivers while perhaps making other users feel they have less responsibilty ? Under the cyclist section of the new code rule 74 says.............Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good discussion and I totally agree many drivers need to be more aware. I was taught (many years ago) to look in a lorry mirror and if I could see the driver in his mirror then (provided he looked !!) he could see me and I wasnt in a blind spot. I too have used the pull over to the left technique coming to a junction in order to effectively block off the opportunity to undertake. Actually I just looked at the new rules and the comment from the old code is still written in the new one and while its clear a driver should look its also pretty clear that cyclists have a responsibility too. Perhaps the hype has concentrated on the new rules too much and demonised drivers while perhaps making other users feel they have less responsibilty ? Under the cyclist section of the new code rule 74 says.............Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

I'm not sure I'd call it demonising - the gutter Press and their nasty clickbait websites are responsible for most of that. What it's doing is recognising that the bigger your vehicle, the more of a threat it is to other road users, and as such the more responsibility you carry not to cause danger to other road users.

 

[Graham H]

I'm not sure I'd call it demonising - the gutter Press and their nasty clickbait websites are responsible for most of that. What it's doing is recognising that the bigger your vehicle, the more of a threat it is to other road users, and as such the more responsibility you carry not to cause danger to other road users.

Perhaps demonising was the wrong word and you are right, the press is mainly to blame but what worries me is the impression I got was that all the onus was on the driver whereas in reality the very sensible statement Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left has remained in the new code but as nobody (cyclists and drivers included) will probably actually read it I fear that cyclist may think they are now no longer responsible to the same extent although wilfully undertaking a car signalling left may not be illegal but its definitely something I would never contemplate as a cyclist. So without getting into legal circles, given that rule 74 has a very clear DO NOT statement in it, maybe common sense has prevailed and cyclists do still have a duty of care.

 

[Haywain]

wilfully undertaking a car signalling left may not be illegal but its definitely something I would never contemplate as a cyclist.

Equally, wilfully overtaking a cyclist when you intend to turn left should not be done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps demonising was the wrong word and you are right, the press is mainly to blame but what worries me is the impression I got was that all the onus was on the driver whereas in reality the very sensible statement Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left has remained in the new code but as nobody (cyclists and drivers included) will probably actually read it I fear that cyclist may think they are now no longer responsible to the same extent although wilfully undertaking a car signalling left may not be illegal but its definitely something I would never contemplate as a cyclist. So without getting into legal circles, given that rule 74 has a very clear DO NOT statement in it, maybe common sense has prevailed and cyclists do still have a duty of care.

Most cyclists don't want to die, and so won't do things that put them at substantial risk, even if they might be legally allowed to do them.

Some do seem to have a death wish. Drivers do still need to do everything in their power not to hit them. Personally, I would find the idea of having killed someone when I had any way at all of avoiding it about the worst possible thing that could happen to me, even worse than being killed or seriously hurt myself.

And then you have kids on bikes (who aren't really in the same bracket of "cyclist"). These are encountered mainly in residential areas and around small towns, where really drivers need to just keep it really slow (hence increasing numbers of 20mph limits) and just assume they will do something stupid, because they're kids and kids do that, and they always will, and they don't deserve to die because of that. See also them chasing after footballs into traffic and the likes - if you see a football go into the road, always assume a child will (a) follow and (b) not be looking, and so you will want to slow and be ready to stop.

Equally, wilfully overtaking a cyclist when you intend to turn left should not be done.

I think this is one of the things the new rules are intended to emphasize.

 

[Graham H]

Equally, wilfully overtaking a cyclist when you intend to turn left should not be done.

Totally agree but that wasnt the original issue. It was the action of cyclists undertaking a slowish (not stationary) queue of traffic when a car is clearly indicating left and no dedicated cycle lane existed. As you can guess, that happened to me (years ago) where I was actually doing 30 downhill (in a 30 limit) and a cyclist managed to undertake me at the point of the turn. He was head down (aerodynamic mode) so not really looking and clearly exceeding the speed limit anyway. Fortunately I was looking in my mirror as its a notorious place for such antics and stopped.

Most cyclists don't want to die, and so won't do things that put them at substantial risk, even if they might be legally allowed to do them.

Some do seem to have a death wish. Drivers do still need to do everything in their power not to hit them. Personally, I would find the idea of having killed someone when I had any way at all of avoiding it about the worst possible thing that could happen to me, even worse than being killed or seriously hurt myself.

And then you have kids on bikes (who aren't really in the same bracket of "cyclist"). These are encountered mainly in residential areas and around small towns, where really drivers need to just keep it really slow (hence increasing numbers of 20mph limits) and just assume they will do something stupid, because they're kids and kids do that, and they always will, and they don't deserve to die because of that. See also them chasing after footballs into traffic and the likes - if you see a football go into the road, always assume a child will (a) follow and (b) not be looking, and so you will want to slow and be ready to stop.



I think this is one of the things the new rules are intended to emphasize.

And then you have kids on bikes (who aren't really in the same bracket of "cyclist"). These are encountered mainly in residential areas and around small towns

Usually of the dark clothes and no lights persuasion ! Werent we all immortal when we were kids ?

 

[SCH117X]

Equally, wilfully overtaking a cyclist when you intend to turn left should not be done.

That is what the Highway Code is now addressing; unfortuantely it has generated a number of poor graphics which imply the cyclist undertaking when in fact a series of graphics would have been better showing a vehcie approaching, overtaking and then turning left in front of the cyclist

 

[jupiter]

I did about 80 miles on a bike last weekend and felt much safer than previously. Only a couple of drivers seem not to have read the email about the 1.5m passing gap. I hope this isn’t a honeymoon period and the 60mph close-pass doesn’t return.

 

[SCH117X]

I did about 80 miles on a bike last weekend and felt much safer than previously. Only a couple of drivers seem not to have read the email about the 1.5m passing gap. I hope this isn’t a honeymoon period and the 60mph close-pass doesn’t return.

At 60mph or indeed any speed over 30mph, they should be at least 2m away.

 

[Graham H]

Equally, wilfully overtaking a cyclist when you intend to turn left should not be done.

Totally agree with that one, shame common sense has to be written down as a rule ! Confusingly I just came across this rule and I am now absolutely sure confusion will reign as there is so much ambiguity. By implication, undertaking where no cycle lane exists appears to be no longer permitted as it specifically says pass on the OUTSIDE unless there is more than one lane when of course passing lane 1 on the outside as written means you are inside lane 2. Is it any wonder we all get confused ??

Cyclists passing slow-moving traffic​

Cyclists may pass slower-moving or stationary traffic on the outside or inbetween lanes. They should proceed with caution and bear in mind that drivers may not be able to see them.

 

[Haywain]

Totally agree with that one, shame common sense has to be written down as a rule ! Confusingly I just came across this rule and I am now absolutely sure confusion will reign as there is so much ambiguity. By implication, undertaking where no cycle lane exists appears to be no longer permitted as it specifically says pass on the OUTSIDE unless there is more than one lane when of course passing lane 1 on the outside as written means you are inside lane 2. Is it any wonder we all get confused ??

I shall continue to do what has served me well up to now, and treat each situation on its merits. If I judge it to be safe to pass on the inside in a queue of traffic, I shall do so as it is often safer than trying to pass on the outside.

 

[Graham H]

I shall continue to do what has served me well up to now, and treat each situation on its merits. If I judge it to be safe to pass on the inside in a queue of traffic, I shall do so as it is often safer than trying to pass on the outside.

Agreed, overtaking as suggested on the outside becomes a real issue if both lanes then speed up and you as a cyclist are then effectively caught between 2 faster flows of traffic. Even worse if the queue is due to a person at the front turning right and is having to watch oncoming traffic for a gap, pedestrians crossing the road they are turning into and of course anyone overtaking on the outside of them. Personally I am concerned that the common sense and judgement that serves us well in real life is becoming prescribed in a set of rules that actually make things worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Totally agree with that one, shame common sense has to be written down as a rule ! Confusingly I just came across this rule and I am now absolutely sure confusion will reign as there is so much ambiguity. By implication, undertaking where no cycle lane exists appears to be no longer permitted as it specifically says pass on the OUTSIDE unless there is more than one lane when of course passing lane 1 on the outside as written means you are inside lane 2. Is it any wonder we all get confused ??

Cyclists passing slow-moving traffic​

Cyclists may pass slower-moving or stationary traffic on the outside or inbetween lanes. They should proceed with caution and bear in mind that drivers may not be able to see them.

It's important to remember that unless it says MUST or MUST NOT, then it is essentially advice, though advice that could contribute to a driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving charge.

 

[AM9]

... Personally I am concerned that the common sense and judgement that serves us well in real life is becoming prescribed in a set of rules that actually make things worse.

With the number of cyclist deaths caused by exactly these manouevres on the rise, clearly "common sense and judgement" of vehicle drivers isn't serving those cyclists that well.

 

[75A]

So you've got a left hand drive articulated lorry in one lane and a double decker bus in the other, is any sane cyclist going to go inbetween them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you've got a left hand drive articulated lorry in one lane and a double decker bus in the other, is any sane cyclist going to go inbetween them?

Waiting in the queue and moving with it (in the primary position in the centre of the lane) is also an option and in some cases is the prudent and safer one.

If you go to the front and are just going straight on, you will be re-overtaken by every vehicle you have just overtaken. Each vehicle that re-overtakes you poses an additional threat to you. So going to the front is only sensible if that will either ease a turn or it will otherwise make you safer, or will save a very considerable amount of time due to the length/density of the queue. It is in my book simply not worth it for a very short queue at a set of traffic lights that isn't really congestion.