Cyclists - your experiences on the road

[75A]

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.

Indeed.

 

[Graham H]

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.

I see a boom in careers for lawyers specialising in semantics ! I may go to the beach tomorrow and yes you may have a biscuit have very different meanings for the word 'may'. To my mind 'may' in the highway code sense says you can do something but only if safe to do so and maintain due vigilance, it certainly doesnt give us cyclists carte blanche to overtake and then claim its now permitted. I echo Haywain here, the sensible route would be to remain on the inside but the code now offers that as an alternative you may use the outside. To a driver its a warning that someone may overtake you on the outside too. The whole point of this is that its just so damned difficult to write down rules that are clear and concise.

 

[Haywain]

The whole point of this is that its just so damned difficult to write down rules that are clear and concise.

It's not simply that it's difficult to do, it's also that no-one would really want absolute rules - I don't as a cyclist and I doubt any motorist would either.

 

[ashkeba]

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.

The number of people I have seen drive their cars straight into the back of even larger vehicles means I disagree and no longer wait in line where I will be squashed between them. Too many drivers believe slow moving traffic is a good time to fiddle with their phones. Maybe this changes with the improved phone law on March 25th!

 

[Graham H]

It's not simply that it's difficult to do, it's also that no-one would really want absolute rules - I don't as a cyclist and I doubt any motorist would either.

Spot on Haywain. Its becoming like the McDonalds case where someone sued because the coffee was hot but it didnt say so on the cup. I have two legs for walking, a bike, horses, a car and a 19 ton HGV so know just how difficult it is under each mode. Not saying I am perfect but it would be good if perhaps there was a way for us all to sample every option and understand the problems other users unwittingly cause and just how hard it is to keep concentration on everything that goes on around. Perhaps a video link for cyclists to see themselves from an HGV perspective, yes we have mirrors all the way round and I have a rear view camera but to look at every mirror takes a second or wto so in that time mirror 1 might have been clear when I looked but a car may have crept up on my inside. Likewise show a new HGV driver what dangers cyclists face and so on. And for the sake of inclusion, show car drivers who decide to nip in front of an HGV at the last moment thus taking away a significant part of braking distance what the consequence is when they get rear ended through no fault of the HGV.

The number of people I have seen drive their cars straight into the back of even larger vehicles means I disagree and no longer wait in line where I will be squashed between them. Too many drivers believe slow moving traffic is a good time to fiddle with their phones. Maybe this changes with the improved phone law on March 25th!

Yes, I was taught (car and HGV) not to get close to the car in front and leave enough gap that at the very least I wouldnt be shunted into the car in front or worst case might be able to steer out of the way and escape if it was clear the vehicle behind wasnt stopping.

 

[ashkeba]

Yes, I was taught (car and HGV) not to get close to the car in front and leave enough gap that at the very least I wouldnt be shunted into the car in front or worst case might be able to steer out of the way and escape if it was clear the vehicle behind was stopping.

Yes! I was taught to stop so I could see the stop line and nearest signal, but it seems that British drivers are happy to rely on far signals working and cross the stop line if an emergency vehicle wants to pass. Elsewhere, stop line cameras would send automatic fines for that crime.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

It's not simply that it's difficult to do, it's also that no-one would really want absolute rules - I don't as a cyclist and I doubt any motorist would either.

As a cyclist and motorist I think there should be many more rules, MUST and MUST NOT, plus enforcement of existing rules first of course. Might help to start by changing should rules to must.

'Should/should not', which often means 'may/may not' is next to useless.

I think you should never trust other road users, especially those who are bigger and heavier than you. I do not exercise priority when cycling, I wait for a gap very often to avoid trusting others, works well in my small quiet town.

 

[ABB125]

cross the stop line if an emergency vehicle wants to pass

What would you suggest that drivers do instead?

 

[Haywain]

I do not exercise priority when cycling, I wait for a gap very often to avoid trusting others, works well in my small quiet town.

That is entirely up to you but it wouldn't work for anybody riding any distance, and is not a safe way of cycling when things are busier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is entirely up to you but it wouldn't work for anybody riding any distance, and is not a safe way of cycling when things are busier.

Au contraire, defensive driving/cycling is essential, and as well as considering where you should assert your right of way (e.g. by taking the primary position) it includes where it is best to cede it and let someone else have space to make an error you think they are fairly likely to make.

A good example is that a lorry driver must, according to the Highway Code, check before turning left. But if a lorry turns left onto you you will most likely die painfully, or at best end up in a wheelchair. As such, going down the left side of a lorry which is in a position where it might turn left is grossly stupid even if technically your right.

There is no point having on your gravestone "Here lies @Haywain. He had the right of way".

 

[AM9]

Au contraire, defensive driving/cycling is essential, and as well as considering where you should assert your right of way (e.g. by taking the primary position) it includes where it is best to cede it and let someone else have space to make an error you think they are fairly likely to make.

A good example is that a lorry driver must, according to the Highway Code, check before turning left. But if a lorry turns left onto you you will most likely die painfully, or at best end up in a wheelchair. As such, going down the left side of a lorry which is in a position where it might turn left is grossly stupid even if technically your right.

There is no point having on your gravestone "Here lies @Haywain. He had the right of way".

No doubt there will be some cyclist deaths, predominately where the motorist claims not to know that the law has changed, but eventually, through bans and massive insurance hikes, those drivers will gradually be educated to acquaint themselves with the law or be removed from the driving gene pool.

 

[Haywain]

defensive driving/cycling is essential,

Defensive cycling is not 'waiting for a gap'. Defensive cycling is taking the primary position so that the question does not arise. I didn't say anything about "going down the left side of a lorry".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Defensive cycling is not 'waiting for a gap'. Defensive cycling is taking the primary position so that the question does not arise. I didn't say anything about "going down the left side of a lorry".

Defensive cycling can be waiting for a gap. It depends on the situation and the threat being posed. Using the primary position is also defensive cycling, because it controls overtaking. There are many forms defensive driving/cycling take, and not all of them are assertive, some involve being submissive to a vehicle that poses you a threat even if the law doesn't require you to be so.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Besides waiting where I have priority there are many junctions I avoid altogether, I take a longer scenic circuit into town. Fortunately I am retired, I record my miles to compete with myself. One place, to cross a main road, I get off and walk.

I really would not fancy having to cycle to work early and late.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Besides waiting where I have priority there are many junctions I avoid altogether, I take a longer scenic circuit into town. Fortunately I am retired, I record my miles to compete with myself. One place, to cross a main road, I get off and walk.

There are certainly plenty of places where it makes sense, when cycling defensively, to pull to the left, get off and cross using a pedestrian crossing rather than attempt to turn right across more than one lane of traffic. Doing the latter once almost got me killed, and indeed has caused, many years later, an ongoing (but not life-limiting) medical problem.

 

[Ediswan]

According to the local TV news, one of the new Highway Code rules is 'Cyclists must not overtake pedestrians or horse riders'.

There is one aspect of Rule 63 I would take issue with. As written, it suggests that ringing a bell is a suitable option for alerting a horse rider to your presence. Horse riders I have met seem to much prefer the 'calling our politely' option. It is all down to how the horse(s) might react. Horses don't seem to like the sound of bicycles. Ringing a bell is asking trouble. A human voice behind is likely to be considered 'mostly harmless'.

 

[Bald Rick]

According to the local TV news, one of the new Highway Code rules is 'Cyclists must not overtake pedestrians or horse riders'.

There is one aspect of Rule 63 I would take issue with. As written, it suggests that ringing a bell is a suitable option for alerting a horse rider to your presence. Horse riders I have met seem to much prefer the 'calling our politely' option. It is all down to how the horse(s) might react. Horses don't seem to like the sound of bicycles. Ringing a bell is asking trouble. A human voice behind is likely to be considered 'mostly harmless'.

the new guidance is

• not pass people walking, riding a horse or driving a horse-drawn vehicle closely or at high speed, particularly from behind

My bold.

 

[Ediswan]

the new guidance is

Yes. I was seeking to point out poor reporting of the changes. I try to be brief. Sometimes too brief.

 

[SCH117X]

According to the local TV news, one of the new Highway Code rules is 'Cyclists must not overtake pedestrians or horse riders'.

There is one aspect of Rule 63 I would take issue with. As written, it suggests that ringing a bell is a suitable option for alerting a horse rider to your presence. Horse riders I have met seem to much prefer the 'calling our politely' option. It is all down to how the horse(s) might react. Horses don't seem to like the sound of bicycles. Ringing a bell is asking trouble. A human voice behind is likely to be considered 'mostly harmless'.

Horses recognised human voices and their eyes give them a wide range of vision so they will see a cyclist appoaching as a strange silent object that could be dangerous. Speaking will quickly reassure the horse. Once the rider has indicated for you to overtake it to best to keep up a conversation to keep the horse reassured.

 

[Bletchleyite]

According to the local TV news, one of the new Highway Code rules is 'Cyclists must not overtake pedestrians or horse riders'.

The Press have, as usual, caused most of the problems with regard to this by misreporting and clickbait headlines designed to outrage drivers.

 

[ashkeba]

As a cyclist and motorist I think there should be many more rules, MUST and MUST NOT, plus enforcement of existing rules first of course. Might help to start by changing should rules to must.

No, let existing rules enforced be first, then see if we need more.

What would you suggest that drivers do instead?

Use the space one leaves between car and stop line to pull over to the side without jumping the red light. This is actually law in some places like Germany (Rettungsgasse) and some US states.

 

[Graham H]

Horses recognised human voices and their eyes give them a wide range of vision so they will see a cyclist appoaching as a strange silent object that could be dangerous. Speaking will quickly reassure the horse. Once the rider has indicated for you to overtake it to best to keep up a conversation to keep the horse reassured.

Totally agree, dont ever use a bell when approaching horses. They respond badly to sudden noise, just slow down, and alert the rider by voice.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I see frequent complaints about not using bells but I find they can startle people as well instead I prefer to slow up, see if they hear the noise of the bike and if not just call out a friendly 'hey' and that works well.

 

[AM9]

I see frequent complaints about not using bells but I find they can startle people as well instead I prefer to slow up, see if they hear the noise of the bike and if not just call out a friendly 'hey' and that works well.

For a single walker or maybe two I pefer to sound a bell (a single ring) at a distance of maybe 50m+, if it is ignored then I repeat it at about half that, then slow down to just above walking pace before passing. If it is a group or a family who clearly can hear (often they are talking) then the second ring might be repetetive or even an electronic beeper. Sometimes the reaction indicates that they clearly have heard the first alert but chose to ignore it. Either way, I still pass at low speed, unless they voluntarily stand back to the side of the path when it's at a higher but safe speed.

 

[Graham H]

No, let existing rules enforced be first, then see if we need more.


Use the space one leaves between car and stop line to pull over to the side without jumping the red light. This is actually law in some places like Germany (Rettungsgasse) and some US states.

Yes Ashkeba, all these new rules and yet the old ones are rarely enforced even in full view of the police. Wasnt going to comment but just had the 'pleasure' of two youngsters on electric scooters without lights and dressed in obligatory black jackets appear around the bend on a narrow unlit lane and then 10 minutes later followed a cyclist who for some reason deemed it OK to have a rear light that flashed alternately red and blue. Both situations illegal and or stupid in so many ways, yet it is not illegal to sell these things. and yes for the sake of balance I see plenty of car/van drivers using their phones !
I think the point I am trying to make (badly) is that unless current rules are enforced, pinning more responsibility on those higher up the chain is in some cases very unfair if the vulnerable the changes are trying to protect are allowed to go on flouting the rules or fail (in the case of my scooter lads) to apply a bit of common sense and at least put on some bright clothing.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

For a single walker or maybe two I pefer to sound a bell (a single ring) at a distance of maybe 50m+, if it is ignored then I repeat it at about half that, then slow down to just above walking pace before passing. If it is a group or a family who clearly can hear (often they are talking) then the second ring might be repetetive or even an electronic beeper. Sometimes the reaction indicates that they clearly have heard the first alert but chose to ignore it. Either way, I still pass at low speed, unless they voluntarily stand back to the side of the path when it's at a higher but safe speed.

I sound my bell in a friendly way, I slow down and move over so the people or horses can locate me. Sometimes one person goes left and one goes right, expecting me to cycle between them? Very unpleasant. I prefer to keep away, 2m or more if possible.

I guess most of us agree about enforcement, but the cops do not even bother obeying traffic law. One could make a good case for giving up cycling because of that.

 

[Falcon1200]

I see frequent complaints about not using bells but I find they can startle people as well instead I prefer to slow up, see if they hear the noise of the bike and if not just call out a friendly 'hey' and that works well.

Last year, on an ex-railway cycle route, I came up behind two ladies on electric bikes and called out a friendly 'Good Morning'; One of them looked round at me, wobbled, crashed into her friend and they both ended up on the tarmac ! I checked they were OK and made a swift exit.....

 

[ashkeba]

Last year, on an ex-railway cycle route, I came up behind two ladies on electric bikes and called out a friendly 'Good Morning'; One of them looked round at me, wobbled, crashed into her friend and they both ended up on the tarmac ! I checked they were OK and made a swift exit.....

Yes, you often have to be so close to be heard speaking or even shouting that it surprises people. A good bell can be heard much further away and over traffic noise in towns, so is useful.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Yes, you often have to be so close to be heard speaking or even shouting that it surprises people. A good bell can be heard much further away and over traffic noise in towns, so is useful.

A bell can startle people as well and I was shouted at multiple times by people for giving them a fright because I used a bell, never had anyone shout at me when I've used my voice.

 

[AM9]

A bell can startle people as well and I was shouted at multiple times by people for giving them a fright because I used a bell, never had anyone shout at me when I've used my voice.

What kind of bell, ring and how far away were you when it was first sounded?