Cyclists, new Highway Code rules

[Linas.P]

27 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. 

That is probably what is called debate/argument... Not really sure why you would expect that this forum should be dedicated only to positive experiences about Lexus and nothing else but that? 

Highway code change impacts us all, so not sure what is wrong debating it, regardless on which side of the fence you consider yourself to be.

But I take your point - some people feel threatened by any intellectual debate or argument and it is not limited to this forum, I know people in real life who say basically - "look that is my opinion and I don't want to debate it and I don't care how wrong or right it is, or what you have to say about it". I think that is very dangerous thing to do, because that remove any possibility of ever thinking through your own opinions and thus simply being right where you are right, but wrong where you are wrong. As people can't know everything this inevitably means they will be either mostly indifferent or wrong, except of some domain where they have expertise and are right.

I am on other hand always welcome debate or argument, even if my position is being challenged I rather get through that, be proven wrong and know I was wrong, than being ignorant about it.

So just to be clear - argument/debate for me is purely intellectual exercise, I am not doing to offend anyone, nor to get any favours, this is not personal attack on anyone either... perhaps only challenge to ignorance if there is any.

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

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.

I made a point that to drive a car one has to pay a lot for the "privilege" and yet are harshly punished for simple mistakes - you countered that cyclists are tax payers two, which is just not comparable. Electric vehicles will soon pay just as much if not more, so indeed tax is irrelevant. I just don't understand the hate towards the drivers in this country and how people always want harsher measures, but then complains that if drivers stops driving we will have £35bn hole in the budget.

Second point I guess it is difference of perspective or attention to detail, I do notice other motorists being retarded as well, not indicating, driving on flat tyres, blown lights etc. And may I just pay more attentions to other people doing wrong things or not following the rules. 

As for knowing when pedestrian will want to cross the road - I can't agree, most are not aware of their surroundings and don't know themselves what they will do next themselves. So driver has no way to know what will happen. I have already copied a video which I think summarises the issues quite well. Term "waiting to cross" is simply to abstract to be followed and I have issue with that. If "waiting to cross" would be defined properly and would follow same instructions as when crossing the zebra crossing (that is stop, look around, make sure car stops, then cross), then I would have no issue - I would look at pedestrian and if they stopped on the side of the road and looking around I would assume they are "waiting to cross", however if they walking towards the road stuck in their phone screen, then I won't bother. I would note that for safety of everyone drivers should be focused on what is happening on the road, not what pedestrians are doing around the road, with exception of pedestrians literally waiting to cross on the side of the road, where it is legal to cross. 

As well I have issue with wording in new guidance for cyclist and finally the introduction of "hierarchy", because as I said where is hierarchy especially based on flawed premise, then there could be no respect. All in all, most of my issue are nit-picking, ideological, logical etc. I think rules are alright overall, but not perfect, new wording changing the rules little but generally eroding good will and personal responsibility for all road users and replacing it with rights and hierarchy.

Yes normally hierarchies are based on competence, most strategically minded soldier will be general, most experience managers will CEO, best doctor will manage the hospital... that is normal competency based hierarchy and one expects to be managed, told what to do by somebody who is more experience then they are. New road users hierarchy is some woke nonsense  and would be equivalent to intern, making final decision in critical matters (in this case life and death), because they are more "vulnerable" than their more experienced colleagues. Motorists are indeed more competent on average, than cyclists and pedestrians, simply because they must have qualifications by law and other groups don't. Lorry drivers would be indeed even more competent, because they have extra training to get. 

Pedestrians are definitely least qualified and thus should follow the orders rather than making their own decisions. If anything new rules hurts pedestrians in my opinion - because now the cars will stop for them and will expect them to cross, putting pedestrians on pressure... definitely not something we needed. And those who never looked before crossing will continue not to look... so it won't help anyone really.

[Ala Larj]

18 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That is probably what is called debate/argument... Not really sure why you would expect that this forum should be dedicated only to positive experiences about Lexus and nothing else but that? 

Highway code change impacts us all, so not sure what is wrong debating it, regardless on which side of the fence you consider yourself to be.

But I take your point - some people feel threatened by any intellectual debate or argument and it is not limited to this forum, I know people in real life who say basically - "look that is my opinion and I don't want to debate it and I don't care how wrong or right it is, or what you have to say about it". I think that is very dangerous thing to do, because that remove any possibility of ever thinking through your own opinions and thus simply being right where you are right, but wrong where you are wrong. As people can't know everything this inevitably means they will be either mostly indifferent or wrong, except of some domain where they have expertise and are right.

I am on other hand always welcome debate or argument, even if my position is being challenged I rather get through that, be proven wrong and know I was wrong, than being ignorant about it.

So just to be clear - argument/debate for me is purely intellectual exercise, I am not doing to offend anyone, nor to get any favours, this is not personal attack on anyone either... perhaps only challenge to ignorance if there is any.

Your first point is fundamentally flawed and inaccurate. If you had been bothered to digest my comment you may have noticed that I said that I am not against criticism of our cars. Your second point about sitting on the fence is also flawed as I did not make any opinion of where I sit with regards to the changes. As a cyclist, a pedestrian and a driver I can see a plethora of boundaries rather than a single fence. I am a political animal and am always up for intellectual debate. However, I take umbrage at your consistent belief that you are always right. You criticise other members on here who choose a vehicle that you deem insufficient for your needs. Just because you don’t like the ES because you feel that it doesn’t handle well or isn’t fast enough doesn’t make you right. Different people have different needs for their transport. I just hope I don’t encounter you on one of our windy lanes when I’m pootling home in comfort whilst you are testing whatever you’re driving testing it to the limits. This is my first and last personal comment on this site and apologise for it. This is also my last word so please feel free to disagree!

[Phil xxkr]

10 hours ago, doog442 said:

Its exactly the same.

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 

That's odd I recall quoting this a few posts ago :

There were 2,491 recorded collisions between cyclists and pedestrians (where no other vehicle was involved) that resulted in a pedestrian casualty between 2011-2016, of which 20 were fatal and 546 resulted in serious injury.

I am unable at the moment to find more current reliable evidence

[Phil xxkr]

8 hours 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. 

Of the thousands of LOC members most, like you, do keep quiet, and that's a great shame. In a few weeks from now I will have been on this site for one year 🥳. I have found the practical vehicle advice and information hugely invaluable and unavailable from any other source. In addition the exchange of opinions/thoughts/ideas /assertions etc be they accurate or inaccurate to be joy 🍻. Especially the cut and thrust with certain individuals with whom I have never felt other than pure interest in their position on topics and never once experienced personal slight. To be proven wrong is one of life's great pursuits (much better than fox hunting) for in that you learn life-long lessons. I believe that the LOC is mostly 😉, full of educated, responsible articulate people who keep their powder dry far too long. So if you feel strongly about a particular topic load up your musket with rounded opinions and join the fray, your LOC needs you ☝️🙂

[dutchie01]

Interesting thread and , as an outsider as living in Holland, it seems to me that the UK is now where Holland has been already. I guess the change in law is to protect the soft target, the biker. All that is fine but the real issue is the infrastructure. Often when visiting the UK and driving on a a B-road i see cyclists. My absolute first reaction is always = Whooot, what is this guy doing on this road! Suicide!! =

Only later realizing there is simply no alternative. No bicycle lane. Same in villages, small cities all is criss cross intermingling with lorries buses cars etc. Asking for trouble. It will be interesting to experience this for yourself, get on a bike and paddle around for an hour or two surrounded by traffic. It is a frightening experience to say the least. The drawing above albe-it old tells it all. Separate the bikers from motorized traffic. Every day i drive 10 miles to my office and never do i meet a cyclist, simply as they are not allowed to drive on my road as there are cycle paths everywhere. Last thing, hit a bike with your car in the Netherlands and you are getting the blame. Always. Even if the biker did hit you, even if the biker crossed a red light and you slam into him. One of the reasons i never take my car in Amsterdam...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[First_Lexus]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

To be proven wrong is one of life's great pursuits (much better than fox hunting) for in that you learn life-long lessons.

Imagine a ‘fox hunting’ thread. What could possibly go wrong?😆 

 

[doog442]

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

That's odd I recall quoting this a few posts ago :

There were 2,491 recorded collisions between cyclists and pedestrians (where no other vehicle was involved) that resulted in a pedestrian casualty between 2011-2016, of which 20 were fatal and 546 resulted in serious injury.

I am unable at the moment to find more current reliable evidence

Apologies a bit of a ramble : My post was in response to a scenario on vehicles and cyclists .The Highway code states that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others - the dreaded ' hierarchy '.  I'm not sure how many motorists have been killed by cyclists for example. 

Your quote is indeed correct in relation to cyclists and pedestrians where the onus is on cyclists  (the thread has wondered all over the place). As pedestrians we've all seen some idiot cycling as well. Clearly the hierarchy doesn't dissolve responsibility on cyclists in relation to all road users (including vehicles) and the HC specifically says that (backed up by several laws). 

We should all respect each other and I can honestly say that 99% of the time this happens. I often thank drivers for their patience, I let them pass on narrow roads when its safe for me to pull in, I acknowledge them, I make eye contact if I can and this is almost always reciprocated.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Its the 1% that can mean the difference between life and death for a cyclist, the suicidal close pass, the door opening, the car pulling out without seeing you , the motorist distracted, on the phone, misted / iced up side windows, the speeding van, the school run mum who's late.                                                                                                                                                     

That said we're all perhaps coming from different angles and experience. I don't live in a city centre, although I've cycled through many UK and European cities.  I've seen the morning and evening cycling commutes in Strasbourg, Bonn, Munster, Lyon, Dusseldorf etc and its absolutely staggering in numbers. As a motorist I'm not dealing with that on a daily basis so yes I can understand the frustration of those who do when the infrastructure isn't quite up there .

ps I've no idea what's happening with the layout of my post.

[Malc]

20 hours ago, Linas.P said:

This is what I consider blatant disregard and literally insulting for all the drivers witnessing it... no surprise this leaves all the drivers behind the lights fuming.

and this analogy I see as being akin, quite simply, to the blatant disregard by cyclists riding the wrong way along Rochester ( Kent ) High Street and the police whatever doing nothing to apprehend these criminals and stopping motorists .  and pedestrians .  suffering mental health issues in avoiding these criminal cyclists .  yes it's criminal ...... and the stretched police resources worrying about Partygate shouldn't take priority over banging these criminal cyclists to rights 

Malc

just let the motorists take revenge in the normal way I say ...... protect the innocents from these criminal cyclists, "bang 'em to rights"   

[doog442]

 

1 hour ago, dutchie01 said:

Interesting thread and , as an outsider as living in Holland, it seems to me that the UK is now where Holland has been already. I guess the change in law is to protect the soft target, the biker. All that is fine but the real issue is the infrastructure. Often when visiting the UK and driving on a a B-road i see cyclists. My absolute first reaction is always = Whooot, what is this guy doing on this road! Suicide!! =

Only later realizing there is simply no alternative. No bicycle lane. Same in villages, small cities all is criss cross intermingling with lorries buses cars etc. Asking for trouble. It will be interesting to experience this for yourself, get on a bike and paddle around for an hour or two surrounded by traffic. It is a frightening experience to say the least. The drawing above albe-it old tells it all. Separate the bikers from motorized traffic. Every day i drive 10 miles to my office and never do i meet a cyclist, simply as they are not allowed to drive on my road as there are cycle paths everywhere. Last thing, hit a bike with your car in the Netherlands and you are getting the blame. Always. Even if the biker did hit you, even if the biker crossed a red light and you slam into him. One of the reasons i never take my car in Amsterdam...

 

Indeed. Below is the cycling layout outside the ferry terminal at the The Hook of Holland as you probably know. 

This is the route cyclists mainly take when arriving in Harwich, UK.

and the 'safe route' for cyclists heading towards Colchester / London 

The route to Arnhem, Netherlands

[Malc]

and in the last photo I see the pedestrians happily placed in their own safe "lane " too 

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

As if living and driving in London wasn't hard enough, from today's papers;

"Using a risk-based approach to identify sites to lower speed limits, TfL says that four 20mph speed limits will be introduced.

This will include the A10 – A503 corridor in Haringey, the A13 Commercial Road in Tower Hamlets, the A23 London Road in Croydon and the A107 corridor in Hackney. More to follow. 😕

 

[Malc]

4 X 20mph then that's 80mph limits being introduced ..  wooppeeee 😉

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

4 X 20mph then that's 80mph limits being introduced ..  wooppeeee 😉

Malc

No one mentioned the times Malc? You must be a Guardian reader 🤣

[Malc]

39 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

You must be a Guardian reader

Oh my ......  I so rarely buy a real newspaper . read the headlines on-line for sure .  all the finance stuff especially and now, horror of horrors . when I go ( rarely )  shopping in Waitrose I shan't be able to enjoy my FREE newspaper ( when spending £10 is it ? )

Malc

[Bluemarlin]

On 2/11/2022 at 12:12 AM, Linas.P said:

I made a point that to drive a car one has to pay a lot for the "privilege" and yet are harshly punished for simple mistakes - you countered that cyclists are tax payers two, which is just not comparable. Electric vehicles will soon pay just as much if not more, so indeed tax is irrelevant. I just don't understand the hate towards the drivers in this country and how people always want harsher measures, but then complains that if drivers stops driving we will have £35bn hole in the budget.

Second point I guess it is difference of perspective or attention to detail, I do notice other motorists being retarded as well, not indicating, driving on flat tyres, blown lights etc. And may I just pay more attentions to other people doing wrong things or not following the rules. 

As for knowing when pedestrian will want to cross the road - I can't agree, most are not aware of their surroundings and don't know themselves what they will do next themselves. So driver has no way to know what will happen. I have already copied a video which I think summarises the issues quite well. Term "waiting to cross" is simply to abstract to be followed and I have issue with that. If "waiting to cross" would be defined properly and would follow same instructions as when crossing the zebra crossing (that is stop, look around, make sure car stops, then cross), then I would have no issue - I would look at pedestrian and if they stopped on the side of the road and looking around I would assume they are "waiting to cross", however if they walking towards the road stuck in their phone screen, then I won't bother. I would note that for safety of everyone drivers should be focused on what is happening on the road, not what pedestrians are doing around the road, with exception of pedestrians literally waiting to cross on the side of the road, where it is legal to cross. 

As well I have issue with wording in new guidance for cyclist and finally the introduction of "hierarchy", because as I said where is hierarchy especially based on flawed premise, then there could be no respect. All in all, most of my issue are nit-picking, ideological, logical etc. I think rules are alright overall, but not perfect, new wording changing the rules little but generally eroding good will and personal responsibility for all road users and replacing it with rights and hierarchy.

Yes normally hierarchies are based on competence, most strategically minded soldier will be general, most experience managers will CEO, best doctor will manage the hospital... that is normal competency based hierarchy and one expects to be managed, told what to do by somebody who is more experience then they are. New road users hierarchy is some woke nonsense  and would be equivalent to intern, making final decision in critical matters (in this case life and death), because they are more "vulnerable" than their more experienced colleagues. Motorists are indeed more competent on average, than cyclists and pedestrians, simply because they must have qualifications by law and other groups don't. Lorry drivers would be indeed even more competent, because they have extra training to get. 

Pedestrians are definitely least qualified and thus should follow the orders rather than making their own decisions. If anything new rules hurts pedestrians in my opinion - because now the cars will stop for them and will expect them to cross, putting pedestrians on pressure... definitely not something we needed. And those who never looked before crossing will continue not to look... so it won't help anyone really.

Thank you for further clarifying your point Linas.

I agree that the wording could be better, but don't feel it will erode good will, and imagine it will all be forgotten once the initial fuss dies down.

I don't agree that hierarchies are based on competence though, nor that motorists are more competent. Hierarchies are also based on risk and, in this instance, those who pose the greatest risk to others are also the least risk averse. That's an imbalance that results in death and injury to the more vulnerable, and so needs to be mitigated. If motorists were likely to face death or serious injury in a collision with a pedestrian or a cyclist, then risk aversion would be equal, but they don't, and so the only way to try and equalise it is through greater responsibility and consequences. Granted, it may not be ideal, but I can see the logic.

There is also a consistency to it as, when driving in an outer lane, it's your responsibility to ensure that it's safe for you to change to an inner lane and/or turn left.  These new rules simply reinforce that responsibility towards cyclists and pedestrians, in addition to other motorists.

It seems to me that the biggest problem people have is the assumption that it will lead to cyclists permanently blocking the centre of a lane, and pedestrians walking out dangerously in front of traffic.  I don't know why people assume or fear this, as the rules advise against these things, and merely formalise the right of way in a  couple of specific circumstances.

I get where you're coming from though Linas, although I don't agree.  However, in the spirit of open debate, I fully support, defend and respect your right to be wrong 😉

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

It seems to me that the biggest problem people have is the assumption that it will lead to cyclists permanently blocking the centre of a lane, and pedestrians walking out dangerously in front of traffic.  I don't know why people assume or fear this, as the rules advise against these things, and merely formalise the right of way in a  couple of specific circumstances.

As I said before, I have minimal issues with new wording, mostly nit-picking and issues with the language rather than meaning (which exception with "hierarchy" where it is opposite, happy with the language but not the meaning). And although we are on "different side of the fence" it is just barely and I am sure we would agree on more individual points than disagree. 

I just generally think these changes where not an improvement, but you probably right - it will have minimal effect to overall goodwill. Those who don't care continue not to care and those who cared will continue caring. 

My assumption as to why pedestrians will suddenly walk into the road or cyclists choose to cycle in the middle for no other reason just to annoy motorist is based on my experience. These groups were already doing it even before this change, so at best they will continue doing it at worse they will be emboldened. Especially cyclists... pedestrians are just generally ignorant (mostly) and thus careless (they simply don't know any better) so they will continue as they are, but some cyclists are ideologically against motorists and they are not stupid, they will see this gap which they can abuse and will abuse it as much as they can. Good thing I do believe myself that there are minority of such cyclists.

What kind of surprised me is that some people get offended, by what is clearly an opinion and even brought some past trauma from ES300h comments 😄 Just to be very clear - I don't think it is possible to be right on this topic, it is language which can be widely interpreted, this is not a topic where one can use facts to prove something, so I am sure we can discuss it for 10 years and don't arrive to any conclusion. So to say that somebody is pretending to be right here is just wrong, I am certainly not pretending to be right, I just have my opinion and others have theirs. Some opinions are better justified and explained, but it doesn't mean they are more right.

I do recognise that pedestrians and cyclists are more vulnerable and that is fact, however I feel the solution in reducing deaths and injuries should be different. Who is more likely to lose hand on table saw - worker or sawmill director? And who is most trained of how to safely use it? You get my gist? Same here - we can put more responsibility on most vulnerable, because that would inherently help them to make better decisions, stay safer and be less vulnerable. Likewise drivers would have much more respect for other groups, because it would be clear that other groups have not only rights, but some responsibilities as well, some stake in the system and are not just meatballs jumping into their deaths. At the moment what responsibilities do pedestrian have? None... and whatever little there exists is just guidance, they can't even be punished for it. 

But finally, I guess life just isn't fair and HC isn't fair for drivers... thought luck.

[Malc]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Especially cyclists... pedestrians are just generally ignorant (mostly) and thus careless (they simply don't know any better) so they will continue as they are, but some cyclists are ideologically against motorists and they are not stupid, they will see this gap which they can abuse and will abuse it as much as they can.

happened to me today ...  sodding cyclist just zipped up the inside of me from behind, about  metre width into which he squeezed ......... left me braking to avoid banging his sodding back wheel and sending him to hospital no doubt .... why do they do it 

ah !!! ban 'em from other than cycle lanes and if there ain't any then just ban them from the roads in general.......  or AT LEAST make them have some sort of Cycling Proficiency so that they are actually proficient

Malc

[royoftherovers]

7 hours ago, Malc said:

happened to me today ...  sodding cyclist just zipped up the inside of me from behind, about  metre width into which he squeezed ......... left me braking to avoid banging his sodding back wheel and sending him to hospital no doubt .... why do they do it 

ah !!! ban 'em from other than cycle lanes and if there ain't any then just ban them from the roads in general.......  or AT LEAST make them have some sort of Cycling Proficiency so that they are actually proficient

Malc

YOU need to fit a dashcam Malc.

[Mr Vlad]

I went out Saturday night for a meet up with friends that neither had seen in a few years. One such friend asked me about the new highway code rules regarding pedestrians and cyclists. Although I've known that friend 40 years I always thought he drove. No. 21 years fork truck yes but not cars. So he's a bona-fide pedestrian and his take on the new rules well I can't put it down here coz I'd get a warning so you can take it as read it's shyte. No way would he step out on a junction to cross when a car was approaching expecting it to stop. And basically 90+% of pedestrians wouldn't either. As for cyclists  and he does a bit of that my friend, he said most are f ing idiots who deserve to get knocked off. I agree. There's too little a minority of genuine cyclists who this rule was made for and basically a waste of time effort and money. Those true cyclists know the ins and outs for survival. The let's call them commuter cyclists just potter along oblivious to their surroundings and it's those idiots who get hurt when it's their negligence that got them hurt.

[MartinH]

I just revisited this thread and would like to thank @doog442 for his even-tempered and stalwart defence of common sense and decent behaviour among road users of every kind. Like all of us here, I enjoy driving my Lexus, but I am in the minority I think in riding a bike, a lot, in London and its environs.

As a driver, I appreciate good manners and good judgement by other road users. As a bike rider, it makes or mars my day — and I live in hope it will not destroy it. I write as one who has held a driving licence and used it for more than 50 years — and, of course, ridden a bicycle for even longer. I hope to be able to do both for a good few years more. The guy on the bike in front of you is another human like you. Just take your foot off the gas. Be cool, be nice. It's not a problem.

[Malc]

11 hours ago, MartinH said:

The guy on the bike in front of you is another human like you.

That's the most praise I've received about me in a very long time ............  thank you .............   😉

Malc

[Moleman]

22 hours ago, MartinH said:

I just revisited this thread and would like to thank @doog442 for his even-tempered and stalwart defence of common sense and decent behaviour among road users of every kind. 

Brilliant, I had to check it was not still the 1st April.

There is a forum for jokes (did you miss post), or is this one of those Russian Trolls I hear about?

Just Brilliant 🤣 Thanks.

[doog442]

On 4/3/2022 at 9:23 PM, Moleman said:

Brilliant, I had to check it was not still the 1st April.

There is a forum for jokes (did you miss post), or is this one of those Russian Trolls I hear about?

Just Brilliant 🤣 Thanks.

I think the joke is on you and the OP with his mahoosive 144 signatures ....9856 to go

[Malc]

yesterday a cyclist tested my patience .......... me and a Q of cars at the red lights ........  cyclist just dashed up our inside (s ) and zipped thru' them .....  nothing coming BUT hey I guess it's a well known fact that cyclists can make up their own rules of the road eh ! 

Malc