Cyclists, new Highway Code rules

[Bluemarlin]

18 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

"getting cyclists out of the way of motorists when lights change." Crikey Bill, have you read the latest hierarchy of Road users? 😱

Yes I have Phil. Are you saying that you'd prefer to wait patiently behind a group of wobbly cyclists while they get up to stability speed,  rather than see them make progress through a red light, leaving the road clear as the lights change.

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I think you're getting a little carried away here and so are missing my point. I'm not defending law breaking, and am merely pointing out that this particular law isn't necessarily practical. So much so that some cities allow cyclists to run red lights, in the way that cars can on right turns in the US.

I also think that cars should be allowed to use empty bus lanes, as that is more efficient too. There should be cameras instead, that only penalise a driver if he obstructs a bus.

So no, I'm not saying just ignore them, and was just surprised at such an outcry over something that largely does more good than harm.

There used to be "green arrow" signs in eastern Europe as well, basically one would be able to turn right at the red light, but that was specific rule and there was a special sign - it was not based on user discretion like here.

I do agree as well that not all rules make sense and that when they are broken sometimes they may not harm anyone. However you making assumption that cyclist driving through the red "does not hurt anyone", which I don't think is objective at all. Going back to my point - even if they don't kill people literally, then at very lest they annoy drivers around them by blatantly disregarding the rules and getting away with it.

As Philip mentioned - sometimes "zero tolerance" or as MET calls it "total policing" is not about how small or big crime is, it is about general "rule of law", if some groups, people can get away with some crimes, then it overall encourages everyone to offend and be dismissive of the rules. In this case it is very clear that cyclists can get away with a lot, but yet they expect same respect and be treated as equal road users. You just can't have it both - either you follow all the rules, or you don't, but then you are not as respected as other users who do follow them. 

[Linas.P]

5 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Yes I have Phil. Are you saying that you'd prefer to wait patiently behind a group of wobbly cyclists while they get up to stability speed,  rather than see them make progress through a red light, leaving the road clear as the lights change.

Just to catch-up with them 200m later driving in the middle of the lane and not moving to the side? Or you secretly advocating against "road hierarchy"?

[dutchie01]

 

[doog442]

38 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

In such case we should as well disregard all the rules and laws, which don't allow for most efficient "practical" use i.e. cars mounting kerb to make left turn, speeding, driving on bus lanes "because they empty" and basically anything that would allow the drivers to be at their destination quicker.

 

This is where you often lack perspective. A bicycle isn't a motor vehicle, it doesn't have the same mass, they very rarely kill people, they simply shouldn't be compared. Driver speed is a major factor in many UK road deaths yet you draw a comparison with cyclists running red lights?  

I agree that cyclists should obey red lights, however I also believe discretion should be built in as is happening elsewhere if its suitable and safe. For example the dispensation for allowing cyclists to go through no entry signs (when marked ) was a sensible step forward.

 

 

[Bluemarlin]

27 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Bill, I always eagerly await your posts 🥳 but in this instance it seems you are away with the "woke" faeries 😎. In addition to an illogical syllogism you append an ad hominem 😱. 

I read today in the USA the government is making "safe smoking kits" available for drug users on the tax payers dollar. In other words let's forgo existing criminal law. Now let's guess where this will lead? When Bill Bratton and Rudy Guliana drove down criminal activity in NYC it was predicated on zero tolerance. The smallest graffiti, shoplifting a broken window wasn't seen to be acceptable, jumping red lights? 

I fail to see what's woke about preferring the practical advantages of cyclists running red lights, over the emotional trauma some seem to feel at seeing them break the law.

I'm not familiar with the smoking kits Phil, so can't comment. Nor am I partcularly condoning law breaking, and only saying it's hardly a big. That said, I did consider your point Phil, and on balance don't feel that jumping a red on a light on a bicycle is a gateway crime to shoplifting or mugging etc 😉

In short, my whole point is not about the legalities of the issue, but the practicality of it.

[Bluemarlin]

14 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I do agree as well that not all rules make sense and that when they are broken sometimes they may not harm anyone. However you making assumption that cyclist driving through the red "does not hurt anyone", which I don't think is objective at all. Going back to my point - even if they don't kill people literally, then at very lest they annoy drivers around them by blatantly disregarding the rules and getting away with it.

In a literal sense you're right. When I assumed that a cyclist running a red light doesn't hurt anyone, I wasn't taking into account the hurt feelings of a motorist.

As a curious aside, in other posts you've mentioned how governments condition people to be againsts each other, and I think this is as area where people are conditioned to feel one way without really thinking about it. If for  example motoring groups had campaigned for cyclists to be able to run red lights, because it improves traffic flow,  then instead of getting mad about it, you'd be seeing the same drivers shouting at cyclists to get a move if they waited for the lights to change.

[Bluemarlin]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Just to catch-up with them 200m later driving in the middle of the lane and not moving to the side? Or you secretly advocating against "road hierarchy"?

I don't often see cyclists inappropriately in the middle of the lane, so can't comment. Of course that happens, but it isn't the norm.

I think hierarchy was a poor choice of wording,  as it's clearly caused some issues of sensitivity around perceptions of importance, which is really not the point.

[Linas.P]

I think it would be hard to argue the link between jumping red lights and other crimes, however there is link between petty crimes and serious crimes i.e. most serious criminals start somewhere, shoplifting, burglaries, robberies and then all out murder. If the person is topped early on for shop lifting and punished fairly, then it will discourage not only that person to commit further crimes, but others as well. However, there is proven link between unpunished crimes and promotion of further and more serious crimes.

Perhaps red light jumping does not lead into burglary, but I would argue it promotes disregard for rules braking at very least on the road. That is how human psychology works... it seems. 

13 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

In a literal sense you're right. When I assumed that a cyclist running a red light doesn't hurt anyone, I wasn't taking into account the hurt feelings of a motorist.

As a curious aside, in other posts you've mentioned how governments condition people to be againsts each other, and I think this is as area where people are conditioned to feel one way without really thinking about it. If for  example motoring groups had campaigned for cyclists to be able to run red lights, because it improves traffic flow,  then instead of getting mad about it, you'd be seeing the same drivers shouting at cyclists to get a move if they waited for the lights to change.

Again - I want to point out how differently we treat cyclist and drivers when it comes to rules - drivers despite paying a lot of money for "privilege" to drive are as well punished harshly for smallest mistakes with zero tolerance, whereas cyclist pays nothing, are required to know nothing and are not punished for any, even deliberate, rule braking. 

I think there is one point where I can agree - it is important not only what laws are broken, but who is breaking them. Because cyclists are generally nuisance on the roads, then potentially motorists looks at any mistakes they make much more seriously - "not only they taking a ***** for 5 miles not moving to let traffic pass them, but they as well cycle through the red as if it doesn't apply to them"... 

So potentially drivers are more upset seeing them get away with this, then it would be justified just purely on risk/safety/practicality perspective. 

 

[Linas.P]

8 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I don't often see cyclists inappropriately in the middle of the lane, so can't comment. Of course that happens, but it isn't the norm.

I think hierarchy was a poor choice of wording,  as it's clearly caused some issues of sensitivity around perceptions of importance, which is really not the point.

Let's not try to hide the true meaning of what they wanted to implement. They literally wanted to implement "hierarchy" and that is what they did. I have issue with idea of hierarchy, but I don't have the issue with the word itself - I think it accurately describes the intention. It would not make it better if they would have chosen some other word, which would be more politically correct.

What these new rules does - they exactly put more importance and gives more rights for users higher up the hierarchy. So it is not wrong choice of wording, this is literally why it is controversial... it does indeed shift the balance to give more rights to some users and give more responsibilities for others.

The reason you have not seen that is because it previously wasn't the general guidance, but now it is, so you will see increasingly more of that. I haven't see it either, but now I have seen several reports of cyclists abusing new rules and deliberately using new guidance to annoy drivers. Sure enough - they are exceptions, but it just shows the issue with the rules, it leaves it to cyclist discretion and assumes their will use this discretion in good will, without realising that there might be some small minority which won't use it with good intentions. 

[Bluemarlin]

2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Again - I want to point out how differently we treat cyclist and drivers when it comes to rules - drivers despite paying a lot of money for "privilege" to drive are as well punished harshly for smallest mistakes with zero tolerance, whereas cyclist pays nothing, are required to know nothing and are not punished for any, even deliberate, rule braking. 

I think there is one point where I can agree - it is important not only what laws are broken, but who is breaking them. Because cyclists are generally nuisance on the roads, then potentially motorists looks at any mistakes they make much more seriously - "not only they taking ***** for 5 miles not moving to let traffic pas them, but they as well cycle through the red as if it doesn't apply to them"... 

So potentially drivers are more upset seeing them get away with this, then it would be justified just purely on risk/safety/practicality perspective. 

 

Firstly, many cyclists are drivers too, as well as taxpayers, so cyclists don't pay "nothing".

Secondly, the antagonism felt by drivers that you describe is illogical. On the one hand you say drivers  get annoyed that cyclists are in the way, perfectly legally, and then just as annoyed when they get out of the way illegally. So, it's not about the law at all, and just a general dislike of cyclists. That seems apparent when describing cyclists as "generally a nuisance".

The reason pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are treated differently is because of risk of harm. The first two  largely only risk hurting themselves if they make a mistake, whereas drivers are more likely to hurt others. As a consequence, drivers are the least risk averse. The hierarchy of rules therefore is an attempt to try and level out risk aversion by placing more responsibility, and more risk of consequences, on the group most likely to cause harm and most likely to take risks.

Whether the rules have got it right or not, there is a logic to that approach. The whole point is to try and reduce injury and death. Its purpose is neither to hurt or spare anyone's feelings.

[Linas.P]

23 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Firstly, many cyclists are drivers too, as well as taxpayers, so cyclists don't pay "nothing".

Secondly, the antagonism felt by drivers that you describe is illogical. On the one hand you say drivers  get annoyed that cyclists are in the way, perfectly legally, and then just as annoyed when they get out of the way illegally. So, it's not about the law at all, and just a general dislike of cyclists. That seems apparent when describing cyclists as "generally a nuisance".

The reason pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are treated differently is because of risk of harm. The first two  largely only risk hurting themselves if they make a mistake, whereas drivers are more likely to hurt others. As a consequence, drivers are the least risk averse. The hierarchy of rules therefore is an attempt to try and level out risk aversion by placing more responsibility, and more risk of consequences, on the group most likely to cause harm and most likely to take risks.

Whether the rules have got it right or not, there is a logic to that approach. The whole point is to try and reduce injury and death. Its purpose is neither to hurt or spare anyone's feelings.

That is fundamentally flawed argument... yes some drivers are cyclists too and all of us are tax payers - all of us! Yet only the taxpayers who as well drive have to pay a lot more, only drivers pays a lot more... £37 billions more! So don't conflate generally paying taxes and paying additional road tax as all the same. 

Secondly, jumping red light not to "get out of the way for drivers", but simply because they could not be bothered to follow the rules. If they indeed do it genuinely not to block the way for the drivers, then I doubt anyone would have an issue with that, importantly they don't even need to jump the lights to give a way. I always give a way for drivers as soon as possible and that usually is matter of seconds. One does not need to cycle for miles before there is gap on the side of the road to stop and give a way. If you ever stuck behind the cyclist for more than a minute, this is not because there was no space to let you pass, but because cyclist don't want you passing, or could not care to be inconvenienced (which in theory should be good practice) to let you pass. I have never seen the road where it would be genuinely impossible to let the driver pass for miles... and if there is then I would likely try to avoid cycling on such road at all costs.

Indeed "hierarchy" attempts to level out the risk... and how it does it? By making pedestrians/cyclist more important, giving them more rights and putting more responsibilities on drivers. I understand what they are trying to do, I just don't agree with the methods and I don't agree with hierarchy based on vulnerability, because such hierarchy is fundamentally flawed. Hierarchies must be made on the basis competence, because such hierarchies are the only ones that could be beneficial i.e. making people who are most able/qualified to make decisions most important.

And indeed the whole point may be to reduce the injuries, but because they are trying to achieve it in fundamentally flawed way and putting responsibility on somebody who inherently poorly placed to be responsible for others who are not qualified to be responsible even for themselves I don't think it will succeed. 

There are basically only two possible outcomes - either drivers will have to drive at walking pace, stop before junction in advance just in case and drive behind cyclists for miles  - or, it will actually result in more injuries and deaths because people who are not qualified to make decision are now encouraged to walk into the road and marshal the traffic behind them by cycling in the middle. 

I don't know what "genius" though of this idea - let's encourage vulnerable to take more risk to make themselves more visible, because that "is going to reduce deaths and injuries"!

[Phil xxkr]

17 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Firstly, many cyclists are drivers too, as well as taxpayers, so cyclists don't pay "nothing".

Secondly, the antagonism felt by drivers that you describe is illogical. On the one hand you say drivers  get annoyed that cyclists are in the way, perfectly legally, and then just as annoyed when they get out of the way illegally. So, it's not about the law at all, and just a general dislike of cyclists. That seems apparent when describing cyclists as "generally a nuisance".

The reason pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are treated differently is because of risk of harm. The first two  largely only risk hurting themselves if they make a mistake, whereas drivers are more likely to hurt others. As a consequence, drivers are the least risk averse. The hierarchy of rules therefore is an attempt to try and level out risk aversion by placing more responsibility, and more risk of consequences, on the group most likely to cause harm and most likely to take risks.

Whether the rules have got it right or not, there is a logic to that approach. The whole point is to try and reduce injury and death. Its purpose is neither to hurt or spare anyone's feelings.

Bill, antagonism is an emotional response and therefore is the very antithesis of logic. And if drivers were not risk averse they wouldn't wear sear belts 😎. 

[Phil xxkr]

2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That is fundamentally flawed argument... yes some drivers are cyclists too and all of us are tax payers - all of us! Yet only the taxpayers who as well drive have to pay a lot more, only drivers pays a lot more... £37 billions more! So don't conflate generally paying taxes and paying additional road tax as all the same. 

Secondly, jumping red light not to "get out of the way for drivers", but simply because they could not be bothered to follow the rules. If they indeed do it genuinely not to block the way for the drivers, then I doubt anyone would have an issue with that, importantly they don't even need to jump the lights to give a way. I always give a way for drivers as soon as possible and that usually is matter of seconds. One does not need to cycle for miles before there is gap on the side of the road to stop and give a way. If you ever stuck behind the cyclist for more than a minute, this is not because there was no space to let you pass, but because cyclist don't want you passing, or could not care to be inconvenienced (which in theory should be good practice) to let you pass. I have never seen the road where it would be genuinely impossible to let the driver pass for miles... and if there is then I would likely try to avoid cycling on such road at all costs.

Indeed "hierarchy" attempts to level out the risk... and how it does it? By making pedestrians/cyclist more important, giving them more rights and putting more responsibilities on drivers. I understand what they are trying to do, I just don't agree with the methods and I don't agree with hierarchy based on vulnerability, because such hierarchy is fundamentally flawed. Hierarchies must be made on the basis competence, because such hierarchies are the only ones that could be beneficial i.e. making people who are most able/qualified to make decisions most important.

And indeed the whole point may be to reduce the injuries, but because they are trying to achieve it in fundamentally flawed way and putting responsibility on somebody who inherently poorly placed to be responsible for others who are not qualified to be responsible even for themselves I don't think it will succeed. 

There are basically only two possible outcomes - either drivers will have to drive at walking pace, stop before junction in advance just in case and drive behind cyclists for miles  - or, it will actually result in more injuries and deaths because people who are not qualified to make decision are now encouraged to walk into the road and marshal the traffic behind them by cycling in the middle. 

I don't know what "genius" though of this idea - let's encourage vulnerable to take more risk to make themselves more visible, because that "is going to reduce deaths and injuries"!

Could not agree more, as I said earlier to Malc if we encouraged more to understand life isn't fair they would be more happier 

[Bluemarlin]

15 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Bill, antagonism is an emotional response and therefore is the very antithesis of logic. And if drivers were not risk averse they wouldn't wear sear belts 😎. 

Haha true on the first part.

As for the second part, the only risk many drivers are averse to is the risk of being fined for not wearing one.

[doog442]

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

So don't conflate generally paying taxes and paying additional road tax as all the same. 

Its exactly the same.

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

If you ever stuck behind the cyclist for more than a minute, this is not because there was no space to let you pass, but because cyclist don't want you passing, or could not care to be inconvenienced (which in theory should be good practice) to let you pass.

You as a driver are not in a position to decide if a cyclist thinks its safe for you to overtake.

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I have never seen the road where it would be genuinely impossible to let the driver pass for miles... and if there is then I would likely try to avoid cycling on such road at all costs.

Good because it rarely happens. 

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Hierarchies must be made on the basis competence, because such hierarchies are the only ones that could be beneficial i.e. making people who are most able/qualified to make decisions most important.

Are you saying that my 17 year old neighbour who passed her test last week is more qualified than experienced cyclists  most of whom drive? Its nonsensical. There are guys on here who passed their driving test on a runway. 

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

And indeed the whole point may be to reduce the injuries, but because they are trying to achieve it in fundamentally flawed way and putting responsibility on somebody who inherently poorly placed to be responsible for others who are not qualified to be responsible even for themselves I don't think it will succeed. 

You need to wake up and smell the roses. People read the highway code, pass their test and have no further qualifications for decades. They are in control of a machine that routinely kills and maims people. The duty of care is rightly on them. 

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

There are basically only two possible outcomes - either drivers will have to drive at walking pace, stop before junction in advance just in case and drive behind cyclists for miles

When were you ever stuck behind a cyclist for miles - complete hyperbole as usual. Very little has changed, accept it and move on.

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I don't know what "genius" though of this idea - let's encourage vulnerable to take more risk to make themselves more visible, because that "is going to reduce deaths and injuries"!

The onus is being put on you, vulnerable folk on foot or bicycles don't kill people 

[Linas.P]

53 minutes ago, doog442 said:

You as a driver are not in a position to decide if a cyclist thinks its safe for you to overtake.

Good because it rarely happens. 

Are you saying that my 17 year old neighbour who passed her test last week is more qualified than experienced cyclists  most of whom drive? Its nonsensical. There are guys on here who passed their driving test on a runway. 

You need to wake up and smell the roses. People read the highway code, pass their test and have no further qualifications for decades. They are in control of a machine that routinely kills and maims people. The duty of care is rightly on them. 

When were you ever stuck behind a cyclist for miles - complete hyperbole as usual. Very little has changed, accept it and move on.

The onus is being put on you, vulnerable folk on foot or bicycles don't kill people 

Mostly inappropriate comparisons and conflating unrelated issues.

I drivers does not need to care what cyclists thinks, overtaking the slow moving cyclist is default option, unless for some reason it is unsafe to do so. It is on the driver to decide when it is safe, all the rest of the rules being applicable - ultimately driver bares responsibility for overtaking cyclists safely and thus the driver devices when it is safe to do so and when it is not.

No it is you saying that 17 years old neighbour isn't as safe and that is not valid comparison. To begin with she is safer than 17 years old neighbour who cycles and doesn't have license... that would be more valid way of comparing. The cyclists who drive are drivers as far as comparison is concerned. To simplify - people who have driving licences vs. people who don't - yes sure there is overlap between drivers and cyclists, but at least in theory 100% of drivers must have driving license... and in theory again 0% of cyclists must have it... how many of them actually do have it? who knows maybe 50%, there was highly questionable claim of 81% (coming from none other but Boris Johnson), but without any evidence to back it-up.  Point is - cyclist don't need license, driver must have it, so there is a difference. Even more so applicable for pedestrians. Same goes for your next point - somebody who got license and have no further qualifications for decades is better judging situation than somebody who never had one. On average drivers are better qualified that cyclists and pedestrians, it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I am sure there are expectational cyclists, who are as well drivers and who are experts when it comes to rules an best practices, but your statement almost implies all the cyclists are like that, but all the drivers are just lazy and never learns anything past the driving test when they are 17... 

Yes cars have capacity to kill the people, questions is how much of that is fault of the driver and how much it is fault of those killed. I know it is not politically correct to blame the "victims", but likewise we don't blame the pavement when somebody hits it head first after jumping from 15th floor. So I think it is fair to ask the question - who was at fault, was it driver or was it pedestrian who stepped in front of the car? Perhaps it was pedestrian who by being reckless died from his own poor judgement, or maybe it was cyclist who was undertaking truck which was indicating to turn left? I am not saying it is always the case, but at the same time attributing all deaths to drivers is false as well. 

At very least what we should not be doing - is asking those so called "vulnerable" to put themselves into more harms way and teaching them their "right", that time would be better spent teaching them the risks... but you see that is not "popular" nowadays, because why take responsibility for your own safety when other can be responsible?

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Mostly inappropriate comparisons and conflating unrelated issues.

I drivers does not need to care what cyclists thinks, overtaking the slow moving cyclist is default option, unless for some reason it is unsafe to do so. It is on the driver to decide when it is safe, all the rest of the rules being applicable - ultimately driver bares responsibility for overtaking cyclists safely and thus the driver devices when it is safe to do so and when it is not.

No it is you saying that 17 years old neighbour isn't as safe and that is not valid comparison. To begin with she is safer than 17 years old neighbour who cycles and doesn't have license... that would be more valid way of comparing. The cyclists who drive are drivers as far as comparison is concerned. To simplify - people who have driving licences vs. people who don't - yes sure there is overlap between drivers and cyclists, but at least in theory 100% of drivers must have driving license... and in theory again 0% of cyclists must have it... how many of them actually do have it? who knows maybe 50%, there was highly questionable claim of 81% (coming from none other but Boris Johnson), but without any evidence to back it-up.  Point is - cyclist don't need license, driver must have it, so there is a difference. Even more so applicable for pedestrians. Same goes for your next point - somebody who got license and have no further qualifications for decades is better judging situation than somebody who never had one. On average drivers are better qualified that cyclists and pedestrians, it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I am sure there are expectational cyclists, who are as well drivers and who are experts when it comes to rules an best practices, but your statement almost implies all the cyclists are like that, but all the drivers are just lazy and never learns anything past the driving test when they are 17... 

Yes cars have capacity to kill the people, questions is how much of that is fault of the driver and how much it is fault of those killed. I know it is not politically correct to blame the "victims", but likewise we don't blame the pavement when somebody hits it head first after jumping from 15th floor. So I think it is fair to ask the question - who was at fault, was it driver or was it pedestrian who stepped in front of the car? Perhaps it was pedestrian who by being reckless died from his own poor judgement, or maybe it was cyclist who was undertaking truck which was indicating to turn left? I am not saying it is always the case, but at the same time attributing all deaths to drivers is false as well. 

At very least what we should not be doing - is asking those so called "vulnerable" to put themselves into more harms way and teaching them their "right", that time would be better spent teaching them the risks... but you see that is not "popular" nowadays, because why take responsibility for your own safety when other can be responsible?

I was cycling on the A43 between Corby and Stamford and got “brushed” by a lorry, not a very nice experience, I wasn’t riding in the middle of the road and neither would I. I am also a Lexus driver so I don’t understand this us and them attitude 

Linas should I have not been cycling on the A43? I don’t if I can help it but sometimes I can’t avoid it 

[doog442]

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I drivers does not need to care what cyclists thinks, overtaking the slow moving cyclist is default option, unless for some reason it is unsafe to do so. It is on the driver to decide when it is safe, all the rest of the rules being applicable - ultimately driver bares responsibility for overtaking cyclists safely and thus the driver devices when it is safe to do so and when it is not.

You've twisted things from your earlier post . No cyclist wants a vehicle up its arse, especially one like you. However I ain't moving over unless its safe for me to do so, so you can wait until I decide when its safe for me to move over and the Highway code backs me up.

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

No it is you saying that 17 years old neighbour isn't as safe and that is not valid comparison. To begin with she is safer than 17 years old neighbour who cycles and doesn't have license... that would be more valid way of comparing.

You assume that cyclists don't drive, many do. Yet again another assumption. 

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I am sure there are expectational cyclists, who are as well drivers and who are experts when it comes to rules an best practices, but your statement almost implies all the cyclists are like that, but all the drivers are just lazy and never learns anything past the driving test when they are 17... 

Not all but I'd wager the majority of regular commuting cyclists and leisure cyclists have passed their test. This is based on years of posting on cycling forums and just reading stuff.

The issue is that kids cycle to school, kids cycle around the estate, however as you suggest anyone could jump on a bicycle and many do....these aren't the majority cycling from A to B or 'lycrad up' for work or leisure yet you appear to have some kind of problem in differentiating between them. 

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Yes cars have capacity to kill the people, questions is how much of that is fault of the driver and how much it is fault of those killed. I know it is not politically correct to blame the "victims", but likewise we don't blame the pavement when somebody hits it head first after jumping from 15th floor.

If you kill a cyclist you will get arrested, tested for drugs, alcohol, fingerprints, photograph and DNA taken. You might be put in a cell. The investigation will decide who was in the wrong. I think of this every time I approach a junction, encounter a cyclist, pedestrian crossing the street or a child playing football on the street corner where the ball might run into road. 

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

At very least what we should not be doing - is asking those so called "vulnerable" to put themselves into more harms way and teaching them their "right", that time would be better spent teaching them the risks... but you see that is not "popular" nowadays, because why take responsibility for your own safety when other can be responsible?

Most cyclists don't want to get run over by you or a 40 ton HGV. Why you have this 'thing' that cyclists or pedestrians are putting themselves more at risk is beyond me. If you can accept that you may well have to take extra care when encountering both, the world really would be a better place. Likewise cyclists.  

[Linas.P]

Me saying that cyclist/pedestrians should be responsible for themselves and more careful does not excuse poor driving, and if that is true that lorry "brushed" you then I am not justifying it.

That said A43 between the places you mentioned looks like this:

I can't see how the lorry could have brushed you, considering there is extra space on the sides meaning it didn't even need to overtake you.

That said the "sides" are not proper cycling lines and are very narrow, it is certainly poor design. On one hand it doesn't provide much space for cyclist, on other hand it kind of implies that cars don't need to give extra space because cyclists in almost separate lane, so it seems fine to continue in the lane which would be very close to cyclist. I honestly would put this on the road design here, more than on the lorry.

And my honest opinion - I would rather be shot in the head than cycle on this suicide road. This would be one of the last places where I would ever want to cycle. If somehow by mistake I would end-up on this road and this would be my only way home, then I would definitely cycle on the pavement to the side... don't care that it is illegal, don't care if I get fine... I rather pay £40-80 than die on this road.

This is based on all signs seems to be national limit, sometimes restricted to 50MPH... literally worst place to cycle ever. I would even say cycling should be prohibited on this road for safety reasons. 

Actually, upon further inspections signs allows the to cycle on pavement here (shared use), so that is definitely the only way I would ever cycle there.

Although there is no reason why that road can't look like this:

There is plenty of budget left from £37bn (£33bn of which never goes to the roads). But obviously in this case I would expect it to be mandatory to use the cycling lanes and for cyclist to be prohibited of using the road. 

[doog442]

25 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

so it seems fine to continue in the lane which would be very close to cyclist. I honestly would put this on the road design here, more than on the lorry.

 

Its a 14 miles stretch of road and you've made an assumption on a particular section of road based based on what exactly ?  Notwithstanding the onus is always on the lorry driver to drive to the road conditions, so if the design is bad he drives accordingly.

There is no excuse for a close pass with a lorry. If he had a camera I'd expect the driver to get a 'visit'.  

 

 

[Ala Larj]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

 

Have been following this ‘debate’ for a while now and have kept quiet. Many interesting and poignant issues have been covered. However it appears to have become a dichotomy between those that agree with linas and those that don’t! He/she does sometimes make some valid points but I also fear that he/she likes to argue for the sake of arguing and always seems to want the ‘last word’. Have always found this to be a friendly site but from experience when folk engage with him it often descends into personal slanging matches. Once that happens ‘the argument’ is lost. I am seeing this more often and it saddens me. I am not woke or unhappy to see justified criticism of our cars but did not join to see rudeness from anyone. 

[Linas.P]

30 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Its a 14 miles stretch of road and you've made an assumption on a particular section of road based based on what exactly ?  Notwithstanding the onus is always on the lorry driver to drive to the road conditions, so if the design is bad he drives accordingly.

There is no excuse for a close pass with a lorry. If he had a camera I'd expect the driver to get a 'visit'.  

Based on the two towns Antony mentioned. I can't say this is exactly the spot, but the road between the towns is of this particular design so it is kind of irrelevant. 

Please define "close pass", when it is the case of there being separate space to the side of the road demarcated by the line, or you suggesting lorry should have treated the cyclist still as full size car here and go fully to other side of the road endangering everyone there (even if just theoretically), or if there was no space to overtake like this then travel at extremely dangerous 10-20MPH on what is 60MPH road causing significant delays and risking multiple car pile-up? Where your entitlement for causing such delays for multiple motorists, just because of one cyclists comes from?

Again Anthony said "brushed" so I assume some sort of contact, not just close pass and that indeed would be completely unacceptable, provided it wasn't the cyclist who suddenly turned toward the truck.

I would mention again that there is an alternative, the path on the side is dual use so, it can always be used. And yes I know cyclists could still cycle on the road even when there are cycling path/lane on the side of it - but this comes down to personal responsibility and what is right to do for yourself. I value my life more than being right after being hit by the lorry, so I would not cycle there myself... even if I would be right and lorry driver would get a "visit". Again - this is weird entitlement - "I am right so I will put myself in danger", which is as well why I think wording in new rules is so dangerous. Besides I am not suggesting Anthony is being "entitle here", but you are... 

[doog442]

31 minutes ago, Ala Larj said:

Have been following this ‘debate’ for a while now and have kept quiet. Many interesting and poignant issues have been covered. However it appears to have become a dichotomy between those that agree with linas and those that don’t! He/she does sometimes make some valid points but I also fear that he/she likes to argue for the sake of arguing and always seems to want the ‘last word’. Have always found this to be a friendly site but from experience when folk engage with him it often descends into personal slanging matches. Once that happens ‘the argument’ is lost. I am seeing this more often and it saddens me. I am not woke or unhappy to see justified criticism of our cars but did not join to see rudeness from anyone. 

I wouldn't worry about it. We've been locking horns since Linas decided he could turn an IS220d into an ISF  and probably long before that. My guess its one (of many) of those debates best avoided for the neutral...oh yeah and the ES.   

 

[Bluemarlin]

20 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That is fundamentally flawed argument... yes some drivers are cyclists too and all of us are tax payers - all of us! Yet only the taxpayers who as well drive have to pay a lot more, only drivers pays a lot more... £37 billions more! So don't conflate generally paying taxes and paying additional road tax as all the same. 

Secondly, jumping red light not to "get out of the way for drivers", but simply because they could not be bothered to follow the rules. If they indeed do it genuinely not to block the way for the drivers, then I doubt anyone would have an issue with that, importantly they don't even need to jump the lights to give a way. I always give a way for drivers as soon as possible and that usually is matter of seconds. One does not need to cycle for miles before there is gap on the side of the road to stop and give a way. If you ever stuck behind the cyclist for more than a minute, this is not because there was no space to let you pass, but because cyclist don't want you passing, or could not care to be inconvenienced (which in theory should be good practice) to let you pass. I have never seen the road where it would be genuinely impossible to let the driver pass for miles... and if there is then I would likely try to avoid cycling on such road at all costs.

Indeed "hierarchy" attempts to level out the risk... and how it does it? By making pedestrians/cyclist more important, giving them more rights and putting more responsibilities on drivers. I understand what they are trying to do, I just don't agree with the methods and I don't agree with hierarchy based on vulnerability, because such hierarchy is fundamentally flawed. Hierarchies must be made on the basis competence, because such hierarchies are the only ones that could be beneficial i.e. making people who are most able/qualified to make decisions most important.

And indeed the whole point may be to reduce the injuries, but because they are trying to achieve it in fundamentally flawed way and putting responsibility on somebody who inherently poorly placed to be responsible for others who are not qualified to be responsible even for themselves I don't think it will succeed. 

There are basically only two possible outcomes - either drivers will have to drive at walking pace, stop before junction in advance just in case and drive behind cyclists for miles  - or, it will actually result in more injuries and deaths because people who are not qualified to make decision are now encouraged to walk into the road and marshal the traffic behind them by cycling in the middle. 

I don't know what "genius" though of this idea - let's encourage vulnerable to take more risk to make themselves more visible, because that "is going to reduce deaths and injuries"!

The tax argument is an irrelevant distraction, unless you want to claim that electric vehicles should have less rights on the road. One's priority on the road isn't based on how much you pay.

Despite knowing better though, I'll continue down this surreal rabbit hole, as part of me is curious. I drive a lot in London and the surrounding suburbs, as well as more rural areas, and don't experience anything like the difficulties you seem to face. Are you really inconvenienced to such a degree?

And no, there aren't only two possible outcomes, there's a third. Drivers could carry on as they do now, and  simply be mindful that they have to give way if a pedestrian wants to cross at a junction. This is quite easy for two reasons; the first being that you would naturally be slowing down anyway to make the turn, and the second  being that in 99% of cases it's blindingly obvious when a pedestrian is wishing to cross a road. It's really no different than managing a zebra crossing, which most drivers seem able to handle.

You've simply created a bunch of strawman arguments to rail against, as nowhere does the highway code encourage pedestrians to walk out into the road. In fact it says the opposite, and instructs them to only do so if it's safe for both them and other road users. Equally, cyclists have always been encouraged to take the centre of the lane where appropriate, and the new rules make it clear that it's a temporary move, and that they should move back over when it's safe to do so. The fact that some might abuse this means that they are breaking the rules, not that the rule is wrong.

And I can't even begin to understand your views on hierarchies. Giving the most vulnerable people greater protections doesn't mean they're more important, it just means they're the ones most likely to be hurt by the actions of any and all parties involved. You also also claim that hierarchies should be based on competence, so how do you propose to do that? If you're trying to assert that motorists are the most competent, then you'd need to back that up somehow, because it's unlikely to be true.

Linas, despite cycling, I'm primarily a motorist, who happily moans about the actions of some cyclists. I believe cyclists should have mirrors, should stick to cycle lanes, and have third party insurance.  However, I'm struggling to see why you have  such an issue with the new rules, as they appear to just be formalising common sense, and don't seem to be particularly onerous.