Always exceptions of course…but have found the bigger the cycling group the more inconsiderate they seem to be towards normal local traffic just trying to go from a to b.
All road users just need to show some consideration….
5 Likes
The test isn’t how long you’re help up for by a bunch of cyclists, it’s how long does it take to catch the traffic you were following before the ‘inconsiderate’ cyclists held you up.
My experience as both cyclist and driver is that it never matters. On the bike drivers can usually get past inside a few seconds so any delay is irrelevant, and if not I’ll find a space to move into to let them past where reasonable. If there’s a truck behind I’ll let him past as soon as. In the car, tbh I don’t live my life to such a precise degree that a delay in getting to my destination caused by cyclists has any material effect.
2 Likes
I think most of the updates are common sense and we probably follow anyway.
I do have a couple of reservations though.
Firstly, with respect to pedestrian priority: If, when turning off a main road into a side road, the car has to slow and then actually stop to let a pedestrian cross first, then I can see plenty of instances where cars behind are going to be late on their own brakes as they won’t know the turning car a few cars up ahead is stopped and then bang bang bang!
Secondly: I have a group of friends who are keen cyclists (i.e. more keen than me) and have shared some concerns which bother me. Having both seen the same story on TV earlier, one was recounting to me just now how it seems some cyclists in his group seem to view the changes as a ‘power shift’ in their favour, rather than a kind of levelling up and are determined to test these out, his quoted example being riding side by side, at their pace, in the middle of the lane as that’s the ‘rule’ now.
It also seems that not many drivers are aware of the changes to the highway code and clearly few have read it at all since their test nats. I wonder how many non driving pedestrians, riders, cyclists will read it, let alone follow it!
I tell you now though, when I’m on my bike I’m still playing safe!
2 Likes
A bit of myth busting from the Grauniad
1 Like
Btw, these are the actual changes.
1 Like
Is it the lycra you like or dislike, the cyclists, or that they often ride two or more abreast, or a long line of them?
2 Likes
Of course, only fully valid for people who familiarised themselves with the previous edition!
True!
I don’t know where the people who drafted this live but IME the prioritisation of pedestrians (as you flag above) at junctions has got the potential to be very dangerous e.g. turning right on say a designated and often very busy A-road in a suburban environment (often with cars parked close to junctions, blocking sightlines).
The wording says ‘should’ rather than ‘must’ (which applies to pelican crossings), with weasel words around this and potential prosecution. Anything which waters down the mutual responsibility between a driver and a pedestrian (which this seems to) is not good news IMO.
This smacks of idealism and seeking to improve something which, AFAIK, isn’t broken - and experienced and courteous drivers already manage the risks to any pedestrians by giving them clear space and room to cross. That’s an invitation for some head-on stuff.
I’ve seen people leap like salmon on to pelican/zebra crossings in my time, gesticulating that they have ‘priority’ - well, yes, but…perhaps don’t run on to the crossing!
I very much agree with ‘sail before steam’ although many others don’t recognise this nowadays e.g. ceding to cars coming up hills.
1 Like
Then they are following too closely behind.
That is probably fine in some cases. On the roads here in deepest, darkest Devon - that means that the whole road is, effectively, slowed to whatever their speed is. Even many main roads.
It’s a really difficult situation. Cyclists, of course, have as much right to use the road as anyone else. And with the state of many roads, it is understandable why cyclists are reluctant to ride too close to the edge of the road. On the other hand, when you have 20 or 30 cars (or even fewer, really) having to drive at 10 to 15 mph behind one or more cyclists, I can understand their frustration.
And it does make a noticeable difference to your arrival time.
4 Likes
The “sail before steam” rule is not absolute. There are situations where sail has to give way to larger, powered, ships - e.g. where there is restricted room (so the powered vessel has fewer opportunities to turn, slow or whatever), or where a vessel is towing another and various others.
I thought that even in the old highway code cars had to give way to pedestrians crossing side roads - when a car is crossing any traffic, it should (must?) give way - this includes pedestrian traffic on pavements crossing a side road. Obviously this changes when traffic lights etc. are involved. Seems reasonable to me.
Why is it that those who pay a small fortune for the use of the roads ie cars, vans, lorries now have to give way to those who pay nothing and are some of the worst users, cyclists not obeying junctions or traffic lights and pedestrians in a world of their own wandering along updating their facebook profile.
1 Like
Yes and it was very annoying having David Morrissey pick up on this ‘middle off the road nonsense’ (presumably from the Sunday Times) and repeat it ‘as a cyclist’ on the Sunday morning BBC programme with Sophie Raworth.
1 Like
Yeah, whatever. While cycling however, I’m not going to be testing out the rights and wrongs of the highway code against a large, heavy, multi wheeled, metal death machine heading in my direction at 30mph or more…
Well, they all seem reasonable to me, I think. I drive with these rules/behaviours anyway, so I’m not sure that I will have to change much of what I do already.
1 Like
The ‘sail before steam’ mantra is only a generalisation - and I agree that if a pedestrian (often me!) is already crossing/leaving the pavement then, by all means’ give them priority and courtesy. But the changes appear to give them (me again!) priority and as @Jamiewednesday says, there must (surely) be an aspect of mutual safety & responsibility here.
I’m struggling to see what’s broken with the existing words/arrangements?
My concern is that some road users, i.e. the ones first in line for ‘priority’ will use this to insist that this is their right of way and will lead to increased accidents.
In a similar vain my daughter is currently learning to drive and we encountered a situation on a practice drive recently where we were travelling in lane 1 on a dual carriageway. Lane 2 was busy. A car was (badly) filtering on and was alongside us and about to join the carriageway in our space despite there being space in front to accelerate or space behind to filter on.
I told my daughter to slow down and all was well.
I asked my daughter why she didn’t slow and she said her instructor had taught her that filtering on is the joining cars responsibility and she should maintain her speed.
Whist technically correct and any accident would show the person filtering on to be at fault I did advise my daughter to be more defensive as she wouldn’t be feeling that she was so right if the car had clipped her and spun her in to on going traffic.
2 Likes
Either this is tongue-in-cheek, or you seriously don’t understand the taxation system in this country.
I suspect I should follow my own advice here and stop TFT…
5 Likes
Totally agree with this.
Do the changes now mean that a pedestrian who is looking at their smartphone can now cross a sideroad without looking up to see if any traffic is attempting to turn knowing that they now have the right of way?
The fact is that the roads belong to us all - pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and drivers. The main impediment to increased cycling - with all the health and environmental benefits that would result - is the threat of death and injury. If you feel the current arrangements are OK, I presume you would be happy to see your son/daughter/grandchildren cycling to school every day, or to visit their friends etc etc
2 Likes