Around these parts (rural west Kent), that would be the least of my concerns. Hills, weather, poor state of the roads and lack of anywhere to park a cycle for any length of time are what put me off cycling.
IMHO, a tad over-laden with the dramatic.
As a (former) cycle commuter and car driver, I know very well what the challenges are - and it takes 2 to have an accident.
ALL ROAD USERS have to be treated with courtesy and sympathy as regards their obvious ability to navigate the roads and junctions. But these latest words suggest some kind of dangerous (IMV) empowerment (as others have recorded).
No - absolutely you should just run them over - it should be their responsibility to keep safe.
We used to have a saying at work:
The road to insolvency/bankruptcy, is paved with the well-meaning (and legal) intentions of many individuals.
I cannot but think there could be a corrupted parallel here.
I’m a driver, cyclist and pedestrian. Listened to the HC changes on the news, then drove off, waited at temp traffic lights (red) for a minute and reached the end of the section of works where a lycra-clad cyclist was waiting. Soon as I went past he moved off - through his red light. There you go - is it surprising etc etc…
It’s a matter of perspective. In this country the ‘car is king’ and cycling has tended to be a minority transport road for those considered too poor to own a car, with bikes a toy for children. Other countries have had a higher regard for cycling as a mainstream mode of transport and have much higher rates of participation. They have much better infrastructure and - because it is a normalised mode of travel - there isn’t the car vs bike polarised debate that we get in the UK. The changes to the Highway code are an attempt to reduce the risks associated with cycling and are more in line with those countries where cycling is a more popular and viable mode of everyday transport.
6 Likes
Using one law-breaking cyclists to decry all is the same as citing one speeding driver as relevant to all. Or one male rapist to imply all men are so disposed…
And again with the ‘lycra-clad’ jibe…
2 Likes
Having lived and driven on the continent for a number of years I suspect that one of the impediments to shared use of highways is that ours (UK) are not, on the whole, well designed to cope with pedestrians, cyclists and motorised vehicles. My experience of the continent, mostly Germany, Netherlands and Belgium is that they have a much more appropriate infrastructure with supporting legislation. In UK the road infrastructure, with one or two exceptions eg newer towns, is just not appropriate.
1 Like
Ladies and gentlemen, the reason why we need closer regulation and more education in this country.
Trevor. Do you believe that alcohol duty pays for off-licences? Insurance tax pays for - I dunno, admin centres for insurance cos? Or that tobacco duty pays for kiosks in towns? No? So why on earth do you base your view on ‘road tax’ being for roads? Do you genuinely believe that your VED (pollution-based btw) grants you the tiniest bit of preferential treatment in road use? Are you one of these people who earns a decent amount and rushes into A&E shouting ‘give me priority, I pay more NICs than that single parent obviously on benefits who was here first’? Or plod gives you a producer and at the station you shove your way to the front ahead of the suspected drug dealer having his dets taken maybe, shouting ‘I’ve paid more, see me first’? [throws arms up in the air…]
We all pay tax, some more than others. I suppose we could all declare our income and share our P45s every year to form a hierarchy of who has the most right to use the roads, but then I might go out & buy a brand new Range Rover to subject myself to premium VED, then I could barge all the little people out of the way - even the ones in their £60k electric cars because they don’t pay VED anyway. That’s fair, in your world.
Or maybe you mean that we don’t pay any tax. That’s a neat idea, buy a bike and be absolved from paying income tax, NICs, VAT and all the other taxes that modern life imposes on us. I’d vote for that; where do I sign?
My bike cost about £4000, when VAT was 17.5%, so that’s £700. Plus all the tyres, tubes & clothing over the years. And the Mars Bars. And the £400 Garmin on the h/bars, the ludicrously priced lights front & rear, all of which now attract 20% VAT.
I really don’t like people who base road usage on “well I’ve paid and he hasn’t.”
5 Likes
But (and not a personal comment in your direction), your words highlight the infrastructure aspect, which is one of the key issues (for me) within this matter.
Generalising is challenging but any ‘policy’ has to reflect existing and future conditions of and on the highways, and here the likes of suburban roads (many marked as A-roads) don’t lend themselves to safe conditions for cycling or in any way have room for dedicated cycling space/lanes, what with many artic’ lorries, buses and other materially-sized commercial vehicles.
You can be as empowered by law as you like but self-preservation must be the governing factor. Would you get out of the viewing vehicle on safari and go and stroke the lions - thought not!
The challenge (as I see it) is that there needs to be more mutual respect that cuts both ways. And simply empowering ped’s and cyclists via the Highway Code doesn’t do this.
It is a recipe for (as the Genesis song title goes) ‘Land of confusion’.
1 Like
Not sure if this comment was intended as a joke or sarcasm?
IMO all road users should show respect for each other and have a duty to be aware of other road users and ideally be considerate towards them. My only concern with the changes is the aforementioned pedestrians stepping out into the road whilst distracted with their phones instead of using common sense and looking to see if there are already cars in the middle of making a turn.
1 Like
Thanks for posting, very useful @Jamiewednesday, it is quite a lot to take in, thankfully most of it is common good practice which I would expect a reasonably competent road user to abide by.
Sadly, ‘common good practice’ isn’t especially common.
1 Like
Doesn’t help when you’re carrying straight on at a junction and when just over 1/2 way across the entrance to the side road, then some van driver who wasn’t previously indicating turns into the road from behind you. The then get out and assault you for 'hitting their van".
The priority at junctions HASN’T changes, only the WORDING has changed - because too may drivers were ignoring the previous rules.
2 Likes
I give this thread a further hour at the most, the way it’s got going…
2 Likes
I am not saying road tax goes on roads in improving them or paying for new ones. I am saying you need to buy road tax to legally use them. Something cyclists, pedestrians etc. do not have to do. The next thing to get away tax free will be these electric scooters. A far greater menace.
1 Like
It’s a system engineering decision intended to provide a quicker, smoother and (mechanically) less stressed start up, based on timing of events.
Not quite - electric cars currently don’t attract ‘road tax’ yet use the roads. This is because it’s not ‘road tax’, it is - as has already been pointed out to you - Vehicle EMISSIONS Duty.
See my post above for the other consequences. Failure of a van to slow down or stop caused: first bruising to the pedestrian (if I hadn’t reacted in time he’d have driven over my right leg while accelerating - the damage would have been quite severe), and then an assault (fortunately no heavy contact when he realised other people were watching). 2 dented vehicles are minor consequence in comparison.
There often seems to be the view that UK cyclists haven’t taken instruction, are not insured, or passed a motor vehicle driving test or own a car or two or paid VED twice over and pay council tax.
My point - and the thrust of the changes to the Highway Code - is that the more vulnerable people (pedestrians, cyclists, horse rides etc.) should be given protection by having priority in many (most? all?) situations. That seems reasonable.
As for the pedestrian looking at their smartphone etc. - yes, it is reasonable that they have priority. For two reasons. Firstly, they are traffic (going along a pavement) and you, the car driver, are crossing that traffic when you turn into a side street. Therefore you should give way. Secondly, if you hit them, the damage you do to them is somewhat more serious than the damage done to your car.
Generally speaking - you are the person changing your direction of travel, so should be aware of any danger you incur to others. You should see that the pedestrian is heading towards that road, and is distracted. Your job to not endanger them. So yes, I am quite happy that a pedestrian who is looking at their phone crosses the junction - it would be better, of course, if they looked up to check, but they would/should still have the right of way. Just because they don’t look up does not negate that right.
Many years ago, when I was a teacher at Exeter College, I saw a cyclist turn left into a small side road (just by one of the college buildings) who narrowly missed a student (who happened to be one of my students) who did just as you described. It was very close, the cyclist was travelling at some speed, but didn’t even try to slow down. I followed said cyclist to the bike sheds where he was chaining up his bike. He said that she should not have been looking at her phone. Well, yes, it would have been better if she were not; but that did not remove his duty of care, IMV. He saw her approach the road, and he saw that she was looking at her phone - but decided that he shouldn’t, therefore, need to stop for her. Quite appalling, IMV - and I’m glad that the highway code makes this clear.
1 Like