Drivers have a lot to watch out from behind the wheel of the car. From crazy other drivers, pedestrians to cyclists, there is a lot to take in as well as road conditions, meaning that drivers have to be alert all the time to avoid collisions.
However, most don’t know that it isn’t just the collision or using a phone that could get you a fine – driving too close to a cyclist when overtaking could now cost you £100 and three penalty points under new laws introduced this year.
Minimum distance
According to the new law to protect cyclists, the driver needs to leave a minimum distance from a cyclist when overtaking or travelling alongside the bike or they could receive a fine. This would be £100 and three points on the licence for being too close to a bike on the road.
So, how close is too close? According to experts, the recommended distance between car and cyclist is 1.5 metres. If you are caught within this distance, then you face the potential of a fine and points on your licence, to the same value as speeding. This has replaced the previous recommendation in the Highway Code which merely said that drivers should leave ‘plenty of room’ when overtaking someone on a bike.
Rule 163 also adds that drivers should leave ‘as much room as when overtaking a car’ when they overtake a motorcyclist, cyclist or even a horse rider. Other reasons that drivers could receive the new penalty will be straying into cycle stop boxes at traffic lights and failing to give cyclists going straight ahead priority at left turns.
However, could this new regulation of defining a distance be hard to enforce and therefore catch? Whereas before ‘plenty of room’ was down to the individual driver and police officer, now having a set minimum distance means that the judgment of distance will require greater awareness from drivers of what exactly 1.5m is.
Encouraging cyclists
Cycling Minister Jesse Norman is pushing to show that there are enormous benefits for walking and cycling. He also wants more of a climate of ensuring drivers have the skills and knowledge to safely manage to be on the road with more cyclists, as opposed to just catching and punishing them.
The government wants to encourage more people to grab a bicycle and ride around town with some £500K in funding behind introduced for new safety schemes. This will encourage people to use bikes for short journeys and cut down on accidents and also car use. Learner drivers will also be given more training on being able to safely pass cyclists, as part of the current learning process.
Worrying figures
The law was introduced when the Department for Transport showed that 102 cyclists were killed on the UK roads in 2016. This was alongside 448 pedestrians, and another 8,500 cyclists received serious injuries. This video shows the danger of not overtaking cyclists safely, and while the vehicle in question was removed from the road for having no MOT, the damage is still shocking.
As they encourage the use of bikes, the government are also looking into bike safety. Compulsory bike helmets are something that is likely to be discussed going forward, even though campaigners have already dismissed the idea as counterproductive. They are conducting a review with cyclists’ groups that is due to end later this month.
Death by dangerous cycling
Another new cycling related law to be introduced is the new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ or ‘death by careless cycling’ which is undergoing a consultation period to see if it should be introduced. One campaigner, Matt Briggs, lost his wife to a cyclist and said the current ‘arcane laws’ need to be changed.
Causing death by driving under certain conditions has a maximum sentence of 14 years. Death by careless driving has a maximum sentence of five years. However, there is currently not a set law for if you are on a bike rather than in a car. The cyclist who killed Mr Brigg’s wife Kim received just 18 months. The cyclist was riding a fixed gear bike with no front brakes when he hit Mrs Briggs as she crossed the road.
The law used was causing bodily harm by ‘wanton or furious driving’ which was originally designed to handle Victorian-era horse-drawn carriages and had a maximum sentence of two years. This is the closest thing that a dangerous cyclist can currently be charged with. It is clear that as more people take to the road on a bike, there need to be clearer laws around their behaviour and how they cycle.
Costly mistakes
While drivers can face a £100 fine and three points, lorry drivers can face a lot more if they are caught driving too close to a cyclist. One lorry driver in the West Midlands was recently fined £1038 and had five points added to his license after being caught by police. He was caught under the GiveSpaceBeSafe campaign by West Midlands police to improve driver behaviour.
Road safety experts recommend drivers brush up on their Highway Code and also the latest advice on things like passing cyclists to reduce the risk of getting a fine. Police forces around the UK are already taking steps to start issuing the penalty when drivers are caught breaking the new law.
Do you think these new laws will help? Will these enocurage people to cycle rather than drive? Should cyclists have the same laws for injuring pedestrians as drivers? Let us know below
What about cyclists driving too close to cars? At junctions where it’s stop-start and cyclists undertake, squeezing through narrow gaps while your car is stationary or going slower than the cyclist?
Why is this a problem? Being able to filter through stationary traffic is on of the best things about cycling in an urban environment. Are you just jealous?
It’s a problem because they try to squeeze through narrow gaps and cause damage to cars in doing so. This happened to me. And are cyclists required by law to carry insurance to cover their liabilities? Or are they even required to have registration plates to identify them, as cars do? Noooooo…
Insurance should be mandatory
And they should pay tax! Remember these Darwin awards keep telling US it’s NOT a car tax, it’s a licence to use the roads! So WHY are they exempt from that or taking a competency test? Motorbikes have the same issues!
Numerous cars dont pay tax as its based on emissions . Buy one of them if it nothers you.
Malcolm the cyclist cannot type properly and I bet he is the one of those who go on the pavement to avoid the red light. That “Nothers” me, or as it should Bothers Me!
typing error is just as bad as cycling error and blaming the car.
not blaming the car – just the driver
Jeepers ‘Alen’ ? Mistyping your own name ? You also missed the capitalisation on your last sentence. Do you drive as badly as you type ?
Typing errors clearly don’t make you a bad driver – so why SO much hate for cyclists ?
Do you hate me when I’m driving along ? Or just hate me when I’m on my bike ?
Such an irrational hatred of others. You probably need to get checked out.
I don’t hate cyclists – BUT a copy of the Highway Code should come with every purchase of a cycle – AND registration should be mandatory.
The assumption that the motorist is, by default, the transgressor in a cyclist/car incident should be scotched.
Cyclists should remember that many motorists now have dash-cams – I have one.
Presumed liability seems to work in a large number of European countries…
In fact his last “sentence” is not even sentence. It is 75 complete because it lacks a subject.
I totally agree. I cannot fathom why car drivers are so against bike riders; they are doing nothing to add to pollution which has top be a good thing. Also correcting grammar is SOOOO pedantic.
Round here drivers get peeved (not hate) cyclists as they ignore lights, junctions, rights of way and on single lane country roads often ride 4+ abreast so there is no chance of safely overtaking – and I’ve used cycles in London, cars and motorcycles elsewhere. Generally it the “I’m right and can do what I like” arrogant attitude that causes friction
It should be “Typing” not “typing”!! I think, Alen, that you have just shown how easy it is to make such mistakes!
Pedant 😒
Join the discussion…
At least his parents managed to spell his name correctly 😉
“typing error………”. It’s the start of a sentence, therefore an uppercase letter is required.
You are a TOTAL, twat, twit or twot – you choose.
‘goes on’ please.
What a stupid reply. We are talking road safety here not road tax.
Insurance and road tax is all part of it!!!!
There is no such thing as Road Tax. It was abolished in 1937. Currently we have an emissions based system which means that low emission vehicles – bikes and cars pay nothing. Roads are funded from general taxation that everyone pays – either their council tax for local roads or other direct and indirect taxation for central projects. A large percentage of cyclists have insurance through British Cycling or other organisations. However, the focus on insurance is a moot point that no one seems to appreciate – if as a cyclist I crash into your car and cause damage its my liability – if I have insurance they may pay out – if I don’t its still my liability to you. Lack of insurance does not negate the liability it just makes it a personal problem that I need to pay your damage.
Getting nitpicky really doesn’t help your argument, even if 1 person pays any sort of tax etc. etc. etc. to go on the road ANYONE on the road should pay *(everyone or no one is the only fair way), it is assumed that you are intelligent enough to realise and it shouldn’t be necessary to EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. SO let’s see if it is any better understandable it in a bit simpler, fashion, anyone cycling should comply with the same requirements as a motor vehicle, that’s the point being raised here!!!!
Not even all motor vehicles have to comply with the same requirements, eg different ‘road tax’ rates, different speed limits on certain types of roads.
Following your logic, pedestrians should be taxed for walking across roads.
You May be an honest person, not everyone is and there are a larger proportion of those around, unfortunately.
Your large percentage of insured cyclists I find curious. Maybe it’s a regional think but I asked every one of the cyclists I know if they had any sort of insurance for public liability …. not a single one did, that is over 30 in my small corner alone. One even commented that he didn’t need to because an accident would not be his fault. I’ve watched this guy run red lights because there were no cars.
I’ve yet to see a cyclist stop to give their details after an accident, and I’ve driven all over the UK over the last 50 yrs. I also don’t know any that have insurance.
VERY, very well said indeed Alan Clarke. MOST home insurance policies (not required by law to possess either) will cover the cyclist. Many of the ‘lycra clad loonies’ as I see them referred to by idiots belong to clubs and indeed membership of CTC or BCF if you race etc. will also give more than adequate insurance cover.
Road tax was changed to Road Fund Licence, it’s supposed to be (but often isn’t) used for the upkeep of the roads, General Taxation is not the same
I would have though cyclists would be up for helping the upkeep of the roads as the potholes are becoming a huge problem nationwide.
Total crap. Motorbikes pay road tax NOT emissions tax. Look it up, it’s not that difficult
Before suggesting others “Look it up”, don’t you think you should?
This is from the UK government. You know doubt know better.
Commonly known as motorcycle tax or road tax but officially called Vehicle Excise Duty or VED for short. The tax bands have been changed many times as Governments have come and gone. Currently most vehicles are assessed based on their C02 emissions. Motorcycles however are taxed based on their engine size (CC).3 Jan 2021
You are 100% wrong.
that is no longer possible as all new cars are taxed at least by £144, (I stand to be corrected if I am wrong)
Sorry you are wrong. Electric cars do not pay VED.
Maybe not, but the Government has announced it intends to include hybrids and all electric in RFL, and there’s a huge surcharge for electric cars over £50,000.
I was looking at buying a newer car of the same type and engine size, my car is £30 a year if I buy the same every thing except a 18 plate its £155 wheres the sense in that
I believe it’s £165.00 on all non electric vehicles. Cyclists should be insured by law as a road user.
You are wrong.
Pity brain cells can’t be purchased , if they could , you’d be able to think
If his brains were dynamite, it wouldn’t blow ‘is cap off!
I’ve read some bitter, partial, biased & ignorant s***e in my time, so it’s no surprise that you lot continue that trend, however disappointing it is to read it . .
Over the course of 30 years of professional driving, I have driven Lorries, Buses & Coaches, Vans, Cars (on road & track), Tractors, Cranes, APCs, and I have raced Bicycles and Motorbikes at Professional level.
Most motorists just “pass a test” and have no further training, yet they think they know everything about the road when, in fact, they know next to nothing, relying on luck rather than judgement in avoiding serious collision; I see them all the time, driving too close, texting, catching the wing mirrors of parked vehicles, cutting in, reversing onto main roads, the list goes on.
I very rarely see a cyclist acting in that berserk manner.
Most cyclists I know have far greater road-handling skills, are far more spatially-aware and are much more patient than most thick-as-pigs**t motorists, like you purport to be, even when they drive their cars, vans, etc.
Road Tax (as you probably call it), or Vehicle Excise Duty as it’s been known as since 1936, is an emissions-based tax, and has been for quite a while now; this is why cyclists are exempt.
I hope this clarifies your Darwinian mystery, but try doing some research first before spouting off in ignorance, like the missing link . .
Sorry (not) if this sounds all a bit superior, but then it would to a moron.
Hold on now.Currently car tax is based on emissions .What happens when we are electric?
Tax has, and can change at any time.. it is revenue for the government. As other members have said bycycle insurance should be mandatory As we know there are many poor riders on the road two and three astride.
With electric cars taxation will probably be based on some complex algorythm taking into account motor power, range and vehicle weight to work out how much CO2 was generated by power stations to generate the electricity to recharge the cars batteries.
Yes Yes I agree
Karl F. Tax is no longer based on emissions (since 2017 April), so check you facts before making claims.
Didn’t change for new cars but the older system is stil in force for the older cars before 5/17 as mine is still £30
Correct, but zero emissions vehicles still pay nothing.
Commonly known as motorcycle tax or road tax but officially called Vehicle Excise Duty or VED for short. The tax bands have been changed many times as Governments have come and gone. Currently most vehicles are assessed based on their C02 emissions. Motorcycles however are taxed based on their engine size (CC).3 Jan 2021
According to the UK government, VED is based on emissions. Hence my car and my bike pay zero.
It may surprise you that there is nothing in the law that says you should ride single file on a bicycle. The recommendation is two abreast so that a group of cyclists take up less space (the group is “shorter”). In any case, if you leave 1.5m space then realistically you are talking about overtaking properly like you would do with a car, and it doesn’t matter how many cyclists ride together as long as they don’t take up more than one lane’s width.
Well there should be, cycling two abreast, means to pass you on some road s I would need to be on the other pavement…..
So single file , must have a bike that has an MOT, the bike/ RIDER should be insured and also should pay road tax.
What damage do a bike do to the road? Heavier vehicles damage roads, bikes do zero damage.
Roads are built using general taxation to which everyone including bike riders pay. QED
KJM, by your version/theory it means that, if a vehicle is trying to overtake ‘2 abreast’ cyclists, and possibly a line of more than 2, it could, if I can follow all the variants correctly, mean being over 4 metres from the ‘near’ side of the road, plus risk of ‘wobbling’ cyclists, to be ‘safe’, and to avoid the risk of 3 points and fines! On some roads that would barely, if at all, allow room for vehicles to pass at all. In the past, when driving Farm Tractors capable of max. speeds of about 20 mph, I have been ‘pulled over’ by Police Officers and told that, if I see traffic queues building up behind me, I should ‘pull over’ when/where possible and allow other road traffic to pass. At ‘peak periods’ getting back out was ‘difficult’!! So how about that for cyclists, or are they more special than Tractors??
Yes, groups of cyclists are supposed to give way and they do so . Maybe at an appropriate time which might not ben the second a car wishes them to. Much like tractors, which often go for miles before giving way
What an absolute load of rubbish!!! I have SELDOM, in my time as a motorcyclist and car driver, seen a cyclist GIVE WAY!!
You haven’t seen me then. I’ll pull in at a suitable point to let a driver past.
Not round here they don’t (give way) . Under the new 1.5m law, more than 2 abreast would mean driving on the pavement on the wrong side of the road to overtake safely. As a motorcyclist for the time being, I’d consider that in extremes,, hardly an option for cars
One lane width as long as there is another lane for oncoming traffic, but How can they (the oncoming traffic) leave enough room for safety when for cyclists in a group.
Riding two abreast is legal, though three is not, unless overtaking two riders abreast.
Tax levels on vehicles that emit poisonous, harmful gases and particulates, do fluctuate as conditions change. We should all be greatful that laws keep up to date, I’m sure none of us would want lead spewing vehicles following along behind a person with a red flag any longer….
Roads were first built for pedestrians, horses and bicycles; motorised vehicles are the Intruders.
Horse and carts Wendy
What about ox-carts?
How about two abreast, or more, wheeling up over the centre line of a road, into oncoming traffic.
Please do go on. Tell us how taxing a bicycle that emits 0 emissions and causes 0 damage to roads is going to create an imaginary bubble that stops motorists killing cyclists? Road tax had been abolished since 1937. And you lot still bleat on about it. Even if they did start taxing bicycles most drivers would be blissfully unaware until 2137 at this rate.
I believe full electric cars are registered but there is no charge. However even generating electricity has a carbon cost unless its 100% by renewables, so in the future the charges may be less but related to the proportion of electricity generated with fossil fuels. As VLD simply adds to general government income, there is no direct relationship with road maintenance. In any case the current model of private car ownership is likely to decline in future decades. Given the level of air pollution from burning fossil fuelled cars it is senseless to keep using them longer than necessary. BTW I drive a car, ride a bike and a motorbike.
2 astride is not poor riding as it is specifically allowed for in the Highway Code. That is half the problem, most drivers who complain about poor riding/cyclists haven’t picked up a Highway Code since they passed their test, often many years ago.
Exactly, on a busy road you should be riding single file… just saying, its how I ride a bicycle, why can’t others?
And on both wheels, unless it’s a unicycle..
Im not laying anything at anyones door, here, just being objective either way the arguement goes, as far as electric goes, it may be the lesser evil, but they still produce emmissions (both very high emmissions in manufacture of batteries and a lesser degree when driving):
Quote: Electric cars are much cleaner than internal combustion engine cars over their lifetime. We find that a typical electric car today produces just half of the greenhouse gas emissions of an average European passenger car. Furthermore, an electric car using average European electricity is almost 30% cleaner over its life cycle compared to even the most efficient internal combustion engine vehicle on the market today. Plug-in hybrid vehicles, when driven on electric power for most trips, have lifecycle emissions similar to battery electric vehicles. In markets with very low-carbon electricity, such as Norway or France, electric vehicles produce less than a third of the life-cycle emissions of an average combustion-engine vehicle. This finding bolsters governments’ goals to promote electric cars as part of their decarbonization strategies.
But still kicking out emmissions… I expect the reason on emmissions tax on electric is the Government is trying to promote the lesser evil. btw, you could argue the exertions of riding a bycicle causes deaper breathing etc. and thus are also producing emmissions so all this tit for tat arguement and counter arguement will solve nothing much in the long run. So I would suggest a fair emmisions/tax system be devised and ALL road users have pass a test and have insurance and pay whatever tax on emmissions that is fair and reflects reality which will do away with this us and them bickering between cyclists and motorists.
Try reading the Highway Code. Cycling abreast is legal and, in some circumstances, encouraged.
How lucky the vast motoring public have a superior road user such as yourself to provide pathetic troll comments about their competency. It doesn’t sound superior, it satisfies all the delusions necessary to be a psychopath. No doubt you are an expert on that as well.
So you being such an expert in all things possible, you have Never seen a cyclist standing on the pedals, pedalling along and the bike is swaying from side to side? Of course you would not ever do that would you? It seems you have never seen it, or the cyclist going the wrong way on a one way street, around a corner on a brow of a hill? How are we supposed to see them. The ones that ride on the pavement at red lights so they do not have to wait, or if they do they keep pedalling swaying side to side to keep their balance, instead of stopping and putting their foot on the ground and wait like drivers have to, oh no that would be too much brain power to have to use. All of this, what you call S***e is about people who think, because they can drive a bus, lorry car and bikes, which I have also done both here and in the USA, think you know it all and we do not? really that is a dim witted person who is supposed to be the only one that brags he has done everything but S**t his pants in fright of nearly killing an idiot on a bike.
What a great person you must be. When are you going to stand for Prime Minister, as you know so much about everything, but common sense, you would do as good a job as any of the ones we have had in that last decade or so.
How many degrees did you get for all this driving and riding? I actually will “brag” I have FOUR degrees and did a professional job, that actually saved lives, not put them in danger.
Yes we can all brag about being the best at this, that and the other, but no matter what, Common Sense, politeness and being aware there are other people, cars etc on the road not just one who cycles without a care for anything but riding where ever they think they will.
**Think instead of bragging then we might just get the balance between cycling and motoring.**
You know the trouble with “common sense”? It ain’t very common these days and certainly not amongst the majority of cyclists most of whom appear to be brain dead when it comes to their own safety and that of others!!
Every cyclist over the age of 16 who cycles on a tarmaced road used by other vehicles should have passed a legal cycling proficiency test and carry a certificate to prove it. They should also carrry minimum insurance. Just as a matter of interest, when I lived in Bermuda a good number of years ago our cycles had number plates and had to have insurance as well.
Similarly, cycling should be a part of the driving test so all those idiots behind their wheels understand the problems we cyclists have to endure.
Changing, as a teenager, from cycles to motorcycles, I often thought all drivers ought to do something like the London taxi driver “knowledge” without the A-z requirement, sending them out on the roads on a moped for a fixed amount of time just for that reason, so they realised how vulnerable road users on 2 wheels are.
As a young cyclist, in South London, I was very keen to take the cycling proficiency test – which I passed, and I found it helpful cycling in fairly heavy (not by today’s standards) traffic. I see no reason why that, and some form of basic insurance should not be required. The roads are dangerous places these days – and not just for cyclists
Love this reply, but unfortunately I feel like a lot of people commenting on this article will not understand what 75% of the words mean.
Maybe that’s why they can only ride push bikes?
I think you have made too many irresponsible comments – you should realise that using the roads means give-and-take.
Where cycle-tracks are provided (which drivers, through their council tax, provide) they MUST be used.
No there is no mandatory law compelling cyclists to use the cycle paths. Also the paths are usually poorer and slower than the available road.
We did a quick survey on cyclists just outside the Hospital here in Manchester… over 70% were breaking one law or another.. including no lights, failing to stop for red lights, cycling without holding the handle bars and cycling on the pavement.. add to that the distinct lack of safety gear ie helmets and the classic riding whilst holding up a brolly and you can see know why people get hacked off with cyclists…
Oh and I have drive cars, light goods, HGV, wheeled and tracked military vehicles, motor cycles and have also raced bikes cars go karts etc…. means nothing.
Riding on the pavement sounds like a good idea if some of these comments are to be taken as read.
According to the Highway Code cycling on the pavement is illegal.
I was almost hit by a car blasting through a red light on a pedestrian and bike crossing yesterday. Car drivers are far from perfect.
Only Mary Poppins is perfect, and, afaik she doesn’t drive or ride.
Did you count how many cars were speeding, running ambers or otherwise breaking the law?
Load of rubbish. I’ve never ever seen a cylist riding with a brolly up. Yes, I’m sure it has happened, but not as often as motorists use their phone or eat pizza while driving.
Well that’s Miss Side for you
I’m sorry but with all your years of experience of driving everything that moves, have you failed to notice all the bike riders who ignore traffic lights and just carry on as they like crossing junctions on red, or ignoring pedestrian crossings when other vehicles have stopped for pedestrians? Be fair in your comments, although there are plenty of idiots driving cars, there are just as many idiots on bikes, who do not seem to realize that they are a collection of meat and bones on a flimsy metal frame going against a ton of metal and take chances with their lives just to squeeze through a gap or cross a road inappropriately, and if because of their action are involved in an accident not only do they mess up their lives but that of the motorist who might not be at fault at all!
Firstly, there is no need for profanity! Just shows your own ignorance! And by the way….you say that “Most motorists just “pass a test” and have no further training,” well, hardly any cyclists ever pass a test and as for “training” and “road handling skills” ….don’t make me laugh!!! Also if you have never seen a cyclist on the phone or texting, you obvioulsy driver around with your eyes shut tight ! I see it every day!!!
Cyclists not only one a phone, but with earphones and headphones listening to music, which inherently cuts down on hearing the traffic. I personally think that ANY form of traffic on the roads MUST have insurance, and yes, it does include these mobility scooters and wheelchairs. Yes, I’ve seen wheelchairs on the road, electric ones i mean. So, all in all ANY form of transport MUST have a reg number, pay a road tax AND insurance. It must also be compulsory for lights, indicators, bell/horn, head safety equipment and reflective clothing.
Trevor, I think pedestrians should also have a licence to use the roads then, as they are often listening to music, using phones, not paying due attention to their surroundings. They are also vulnerable so should wear safety equipment and lights at all times when using the roadways. If we are going to clamp down we should do it properly. They should have insurance too, I’ve seen a pedestrian make a nasty dent in a lovely car and they got blood all over it too, they definitely need insurance.
So you’ve never seen a cyclist riding on the pavement, crashing into pedestrians, or trying to push motorcyclists out the way because they have stopped at a red light at traffic lights or cycling 2,3 or more abreast when the highway code states single file. It would be better if we all put our own hose in order before telling others what to do, that would do more for road safety than anything else
I’ve never seen a cyclist crashing into pedestrians or pushing motorcycles out of the way.
I have had pedestrians run out into my path before and stopped with a leg either side of my wheel.
I’ve had plenty of close passes from motorists – the worst ones being on completely empty straight roads. Its almost like they want to kill me ? Very poor driving.
You got the message then?
Get back to me when motorists stop killing 1700 people a year. We can talk about getting houses into order then.
So you’ve never seen a cyclist riding on the pavement, crashing into pedestrians, or trying to push motorcyclists out the way because they have stopped at a red light at traffic lights
No, never in my entire 59 yr life.
I’d like to see the bit in the Highway Code where it says single file (Hint: It doesn’t exist.) I think you’ll find it says should not ride MORE than 2 abreast.
It says more than that too, try reading the Highway Code.. https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/highway-code-for-cyclists
Paul Driver – so you say drivers have no clue after training? How do you justify your comment about cyclist “road-ability” who have no formal training at all and don’t even know what the signs mean. Where their miraculous skills (you mentioned in your post) came from – just born gifted?
As well when you say – “more patient” then motorists, do you mean 90% of the cyclist who jumps red-lights and runs pavement etc? Or that is specifically you or someday you know? It is not
like I rarely see cyclists acting in “berserk manner” – that is the only manner they are acting in e.g. deliberately hitting car mirrors with hand, shouting, screaming, cutting-off, creating dangerous situation, driving without lights at night, drunk, under influence of drugs, driving wrong way on the street… perhaps you just turn blind eye on what you don’t want to see or admit?
Vehicle excessive duty or road “Road Tax”, was in force in some form or another since 1936, and depending on the year it was based on different aspects, more lately 1991+ it was based on Co2 emission, but since 2017 it is not longer based on that – now it is based mostly on the value of the car. All cars pays universal £140/year + value based surcharge for first 5 years. In short I am happy to clarify this “Darwinian mystery” for you as you are incorrect as of today (probably living under the rock for last 1.5 years).
Furthermore, whatever you want to believe VED is a road tax, because if you don’t use roads you don’t pay it e.g. heavily polluting far vehicles don’t pay it as long as they don’t drive on public roads. In short you can call it anything you like it is de-facto road tax, if you use the road you pay it…
So again why did you say cyclists are exempt? And why they don’t need any training?
Most cyclists also drive a car
Paul, is your middle name Jesus as you seem to think you are a perfect human being who when driving any vehicle is perfoming miracles of perfection in driving technique (I think not)
Well said Paul. When I started cycling in the mid 70s there were no cycle routes/lanes. You very quickly had to learn the “rules of the road” and become spacially aware or else you got squashed. And the roads were plenty busy back then.
So I’ve been a keen leisure cyclist for over 4 decades and am still here to tell the tale. I’ve cycled 10s of thousands of miles, most of it on main roads in traffic.
Yet I repeatedly come across people that haven’t even been alive that long telling me how/where I should be cycling, people that would probably struggle to tell one end of a bike from the other.
As a footnote, I always felt that having cyled for several years helped me greatly when I started learning to drive.
# Paul well said, very intelligent reply to all the silly a***s who it would seem are quite happy to kill or injure one of their fellow countrymen just to satisfy their uncontrolled anger.
Tell me how can it “ sound” a bit superior when this is a “ visual” medium as opposed to an “ auditory “ one , are you one of those morons you refer to ?
You’ve obviously not seen the stupid cyclists on the roads, well we have , deal with it
And how many cyclists have you seen texting and making phone calls while riding down the road the wrong way, jumping traffic lights, and on occasion level crossings. Cyclist thumping the tops of cars, because they’re trying to fit down the kerb side in standing traffic where there’s no room because of a guardrail. Yes I too have taken and passed m/c, car, HGV 3,2, and 1. Driven Tank Transporters, Tankers and Draw-Bars. Hell I even took and passed a cycling proficiency test (one I very much doubt many have today) A good 60% of cyclists only do so because they’re incapable of passing a driving test, or failing to keep a valid licence.
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it any less true.
You obviously see a different breed of cyclists than i do ??? ….. i suspect you have a very biased opinion ! ….. the majority i have seen are ignorant and entitled morons !!!
Well said Paul. 100% spot on. As a cyclist,motorcyclist & car driver of many years experience (professionally in the latter 2 modes) I couldn’t agree more with your views,so eloquently put.
‘ most thick-as-pigs**t motorists’ is hardly contributing to the discussion, all you have done is to exasperate the issue, making such derogatory comments and name calling is divisive and just proves the point that some people can’t have a civil conversation which ultimately has the opposite result.
Love every sentence of that Paul – 100%
Very well said!
You mean cyclists don’t pay tax! I need to start riding a bike.
A word of advice……..Don’t!!!
Because thicko Brian 159 will deliberately run you down
You are a fool Paul! Think about ‘other’ vehicles that don’t pay any VED, before you let rip about taxing cyclists, get the government to make these pay… Ambulances – Fire Engines – Doctors vehicles – Police vehicles – Army vehicles – ALL electric vehicles – electric/petrol vehicles – electric/diesel vehicles – disabled vehicles – fast electric bikes..
Never met a cyclist that didn’t pay tax
It’s not car tax, nor road tax; it’s vehicle excise duty, and is paid by most type of vehicles by ‘arbitrary’ rules
Call it what you like ….. IT IS CAR TAX !!!
I also do ride a motorbike and I pay £8 per month Road Tax and I had to take a test. What issues are you referring to?
I pay car tax to use the road yet I cover more miles on a bike. Are you saying a cyclist should pay twice?
It’s not a road tax, we all pay for roads through our taxes whether we have a vehicle or not. The vehicles that produce high levels of the toxins that give children and older people breathing difficulty pay an emissions tax on top.
Why are people so stupid? It’s based on emissions. It’s not a “licence to use the roads”. Idiot
You’ll properly fined most cyclist do pay road tax because they own a car too. The majority of cyclists do show competency but just like competent drivers(ones who have passed a competency test) there will unfortunately be a minority who choose not to demonstrate there competency, the majority of that minority are car drivers.
roads are maintained from the general tax income, so they pay as much tax as you, but wear the roads much less and don’t emit polution. Imagine all those cyclists in cars instead, just think how much of a congested nightmare your journey would be.
ved, is not a tax to use the roads it is a tax on emission gases produced by the burning of petrol and diesel ,so electric cars do not pay or bicycles.
Paul, it’s not a car tax and it’s not a license to use the road. I’d Vehicle Excise Duty and it’s based on emissions. A bicycle doesn’t have any emissions and therefore posts nothing. My car is exempt too, next time, educate yourself before posting moronic and incorrect information.
Having 3rd Party insurance is in the cyclist’s interest, as without it they risk paying out of their own pocket for any awards against them as the result of an accident, scratching a car, etc.
Membership of Cycling UK (formerly CTC), and British Cycling, both come with 3rd PArty Insurance.
Many thousands already do!
Insurance, road tax. MOT the same as a car
What is ‘road tax’?
and road tax
Yeah because number plates and insurance really seem to prevent motorists from killing hundreds and injuring thousands of cyclists/pedestrians every year.
You can’t make a blanket claim like that without knowing the full facts of each and every accident, sometimes it is not the vehicle drivers fault. If cyclists want to be treat fairly let them at least have public liability insurance and a test certificate to say they are fully qualified to be on the road also stop them from riding on the footpath.
When a motor vehicle hits an undefended cyclist it is not a accident it is a incident. Accident is a cause which is totally out of your hands, but then we know luny car drivers claim it was the cars fault as the so called driver was not responsible for the action of the vehicle he is supposed to be controlling.
You know 40 pedestrians a year are killed by motorists while on the pavement? Part of the 1700 people in total that they kill each year. And you get annoyed at bikes? 1700 deaths a year from motorists not annoying enough?
So by YOUR argument, we shouldn’t tax motorists right! And what about the MILLIONS of damages caused by cyclists? Oh I forgot you scum are angels!
Idiot
How many deaths are self inflicted because the cyclist didn’t THINK CAR!
Whenever I see those signs that say “Danger think Bike!” it makes me want to take out a black marker pen and amend them to read “Danger….think numpty!” as it seems more appropriate. Cyclists dont think of their own safety and the same goes for motorcyclists!!
If I didn’t think of my safety I would have been injured or killed umpteen times over. Idiot cars overtaking on blind bends was the latest incident and I had to throw myself into a hedge.
Sure there are some numpties out there but the damage is to them mainly. In a car you can kill very easily. You have a lot more responsibility.
I doubt it, what it means is the other road users have successfully avoided you, while blindly pedalling away. I see little if any cyclist look behind them, before swerving in the road to pass obstacles, and hand signals ha don’t make me laugh.
I did see a cyclist give a good hand signal yesterday – and he did also look behind him. That is the second time this year. A definite improvement on last year.
Eddie, you forgot the only hand signals from cyclists are normally 1 or 2 fingers, won’t be long before there in the Highway Code as advice for cyclists.
I think you must drive a lot in London. Everyone drives like a pillock. Cars vans cyclists and motorcyclists. All seam to drive were ever they wish . Out in the real world isn’t as bad. I’ve travelled 568kms today an not had one problem.
I’m no expert, unlike many commenting on this subject appear to be, but I believe that the “bike” referred to is a motorcycle. Haven’t you seen the pretty silhouette? Perhaps before pouring out any more of your puerile abuse you might wish to take part of the advice on the sign to which you refer…”Think”.
While on the subject perhaps somebody could tell us how many pedestrians get killed or seriously injured by cyclists riding on pavements just to put a little perspective into the discussion.
Not that many if you look at the statistics.
Hope that helps.
Mmm, “self inflicted”. Is that the term you use when a pedestrian or small child steps/runs out in front of a car?
but they do enable the motorists to be held responsible…. not something that can be said for the cyclist….
So, since more pedestrians cause deaths in collisions with cyclists than cyclists do, do we need number plates on pedestrians? No, that would be stupid because it’s such a low number (6) that it’s not important in the grand scheme of it where there were over 10,000 road deaths.
Insurance should be mandatory and cyclists should be made to obey the rules of the road. Without any registration on cycles or the need for insurance or even proven ability to use a cycle they just flaunt the rules and don’t care. I am sure I am not the first motorist to have a cyclist clip a mirror whilst squeezing past at traffic lights only to get home and find the mirror scratched . Resprayed at my expensive naturally..
I am not anti cycling just fed up of the total injustice between cyclists and motorists. It is time for cyclists to be made responsible for their actions made to obey the rules of the road and to prove they have the necessary skills to use these modern day busy roads.
# Peter so every car driver is 100% law abiding, so where does all the rubbish come from that is smothering the hedgerows, well 100% by the dirty stinking anti British car drivers that’s who.
It is not about whether car drivers or cyclists obey the law as there is fault with everyone’s use of the road at times. Lack of concentration occur in all humans at some time or other.
None of us is perfect. I see car drivers and cyclists behaving stupidly and I have through lack of concentration gone through a red light in my driving career once. We all share the roads and should try to coexist and be polite to each other.
IF this thread is anything to go by we need more women at the top. Men are clearly way to egotistical.
Finally someone who sees sense, cars and bikes are all legally allowed to use the road and as such we are all road users, I use both. There are idiot cyclists just as there are idiot car drivers and the majority of us road users obey the rules and pay what is currently legally required. This them and us mentally needs to stop and we should respect each other’s right to use the road because we all can and not resort to petty abuse.
leave space for the cyclist.
Well whoopy do to you
I’ve never even touched a car in my life doing that. Maybe give them a bit more room next time though ?
As to registration plates – no country in the world has them. What would you like ? Nice wide ones that make the bikes wider and scratchier ?
The possible damage caused by a bike is minute compared to the amount of destruction possible from cars.
In human terms and financial terms.
If you want to hound people off bikes then you’d better be prepared to have more cars in front of you at the lights and in your parking spaces in town. Bikes are an excellent way of moving people round. Try it yourself.
nonsense filtering is forced upon cyclists because drivers don’t allow room on the near side for a pass and then stop in the advanced box meant for cyclists incidently i also drive and cycle and some so called drivers need remedial training.
Boo hoo, it’s all about the car driver. You in something that can kill easy.
Foolish response!!
It’s a problem because in stop-start traffic where cars can be travelling at similar speeds as bikes, it is impossible to give them enough room if bikes narrowly squeeze past you and undertake or cycle alongside you. This makes it impossible for cars to allow enough space with this new law, in that situation.
Unless in a cycle lane this law should apply to cyclists also. Only undertake if there’s 1.5m space between cyclist and car.
Spot on Pablo !!!
Yes this is flawless logic
And without going on the pavement risking injury to pedestrians!
Get off and walk rather than stay on your bike and squeeze into a space putting the car driver at risk of hitting you when they move off, or you at risk from being run over or squashed. Take responsibility for your own safety, novel an idea as it is……… perhaps.
I also suppose that it will now be legal to drive on the opposite side of the road, since many roads are barely more than 3m wide and space/bike/space is already nearly that.
Er it is legal already ? Maybe you need to resit your test.
Moggie63, that’s what you would do for a car and the driver is far less vulnerable. Mirror, signal, manoeurve, same for all road users. Unless you think cyclist’s families grieve less.
Pablo Pablo Pablo.
Try this – go to your local railway station. Stand on the yellow line as a through train whistles through. Thats a car passing a bike. Scary eh ?
Now wait for a train to arrive and walk past it. That’s a bike passing a car. Not scary. No danger or death involved.
Hope this helps.
It’s a problem when they get into a driver’s blind spot.
That’s why we all need to move our heads round. You KNOW your car has a blind spot – so you need to move your head to see round it. It’s simple really.
Crash, where did that car in front come from. Impossible to lokk in 2 directions
Please hand in your licence Stephen. The roads are too tricky for you. I expect you don’t even use your mirrors.
caroline it is your responsibility to ensure you don’t have a blind spot, stop trying to make ignorant excuses. When you get into your car you are and have the overriding responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone around you. It is typical of the stupidity of car drivers that somebody else is responcible for their lack of care.
All cars have blind spots, (and modern cars are getting even worse,) which is why, some of you, may remember when learning being told to “check mirrors then look over shoulder to check blind spot” before moving off. In traffic, of course, you have blind spots on both sides.
However, if you check your mirrors ofetn enough, (sadly few seem to do,) then you will see casr/cyclists approaching from behind BEFORE they get onto the blind spots.
Forgetting cyclists for a moment, this is an important issue on motorways. How many people give a casual glance in their mirror and think it safe to over take, start pulling out and only then discover that they are themselves being overtaken? (usually by a blast on the horn of the car about to be pushed into the central reservation).
The problem? Not using their mirrors often enough to keep a check on what is coming up from behind and then not giving that final blind spot check.
I know some cars have ridiculous blind spots (it’s why I refuse to drive 3 door Fiestas for instance) but it’s still your responsibility to look about before setting off. Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre.
Because you idiot Tom, I’ve had the entire side of my Alfa scratched because of sociopath cyclists.
That was me – Alfa’s are s***
Tom, stop jugding Alfa’s as you would descibe yourself.
In my experience its other motorist in car parks or idiots throwing shopping trolleys away in the supermarket.
Not much you can do about idiots.
But having a scratch versus actually knocking down and killing a mother, daughter, father, son…
Not much of a comparison is it ?
It’s only a stupid car, nobody died. You car drivers put more emphasis on inanimate objects above human beings.
PRICK ….. YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY / BELONGINGS THAT THEY WORK BLOODY HARD FOR ……. YOU DESERVE THE DARWIN AWARD !
It’s a problem because cyclist then place themselves in a position of danger. Once suitably injured they then complain that they have been deliberately targeted by the motorist when in fact they are responsible for their injuries.
Well that will all come out in the wash won’t it.
“suitably injured” indeed.
The statistics show that for cyclists over the age of 25 – 80% of accidents are the fault of drivers.
Jon, please will you elaborate on what injuries you feel are suitable for cyclists?
I’m sure we’d all like to know..
NO – them kicking at doors because they are slowed down is the problem! Them hogging the lane because they are selfish is the problem. Riding side by side in heavy traffic slowing the flow is the problem! Are you mentally ill – seems so! BTW You are NOT allowed to do this if unsafe AND YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT RED LIGHTS
No it is called consideration for other road users!
No when it is done saftly without causeing the rest of the driving public problems.
Weaving back and forth, which many cyclists do, is just plain dangerous. THINK CAR! Likewise jumping traffic lights and the wrong way in a one way street is illegal, but when is anything ever done. Cyclists should be banned, the same as car drivers, for repeat offences. You are not exempt just because you ride a bike.
If you weave in and out, and drivers are supposed to watch car in front in stop go traffic, how can we see you until it is too late and you are dead? Are you wanting your bike to be interned with you?Are you jealous, Idiot.
It means you are “undertaking” a vehicle and thats illegal…. or dont the rules of the road apply to you?
Actually there is no law against undertaking and it is in fact allowed in queuing situations e.g. the instruction to avoid changing lanes on so called “smart” motorways. It is however a requirement to not obstruct other traffic, so doing so when there isn’t space would class as careless driving.
Jealousy doesnt come in to it. Who would want to ride a stupid bike in city traffic? Use the park, it’s what kids toys are for ! But on a more serious note…..Cyclists do not give a damn about anybody but themselves. They ride too close to cars and when they damage them by scratching along the side through wobbling, they just wave “sorry” and cycle off into the distance ! They MUST be made as accountable as car/lorry drivers and the MUST be made to have insurance and registration numbers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who would want to ride a stupid bike in city traffic?
No one in their right mind so time we banned all the cars.
Brian – have you taken your medication today ? Your Blood Pressure must be through the roof.
I like to ride a bike in city traffic. It’s faster. Would you really want all those cyclists in cars in front of you and taking up all the car parking in town.
I’ve never scratched a car in my life.
You need less hatred in your life.
I’m a cyclist and a car driver so I see both sides of the problem, if a cyclist squeezes through a gap in the traffic and a car starts to move forwards, the car driver could find themselves too close to the cyclist, resulting in possible contact, a difficult situation to place any blame on either road user.
I don’t remember leaving this comment. Don’t tell me that I’m not, after all, the ONLY Lawrence that both cycles and drives!
“THAT” comment!!
Most cyclists are bloody idiots, they demand cycle lanes but very rarely use them, they should be registered an forced to be insured like cars
I was taught at Primary school not to make generalisations like “…most…” “…the majority…” “…everybody…” so just reflect on what you have written please. I’ll try to make it easy for you. Do you know most cyclists? “No”. Do you know all of them that demand cycle lanes? “No”. Do you monitor cycle lanes and can show that they are rarely used by the people who demand them? “No”.
Unless you can answer “Yes” honestly to those three simple questions the phrase which includes the terms “pot” “kettle” and “black” spring to mind.
Do you think it’s perhaps time you stopped being a kn*b?
Cylclists are generally untrained, uninsured liabilities to everyone on the road. They should be separated from motorised vehicles. How about they drive on pavements? Otherwise let’s continur culling then.. 😀
It is high time we had the same system as in Germany – there are two pavements, segregated from the road and from each other by kerbs. The outermost one is for pedestrians, the lower inner one is for cyclists ONLY.
Anyone cycling or walking in the wrong one is liable to a €25 fine – the same fine also applies to “jay-walking” (crossing the road anywhere other than a marked pedestrian crossing).
We should at least introduce “on-the-spot” fines for cyclists who break the highway code – maybe £200 would wake them up to their responsibilities!
Presumably cyclists will no longer be permitted to “filter through stationary traffic” unless there is a 0.75 metre space to their left and a 1.5 metre space between cyclist and car ? So that they don’t endanger themselves ?
It’s not the same situation. The police education mat is to show drivers how to pass at normal speed. Passing stationary cars with a bike doesn’t require the same level of care.
Try this. Walk between two stationary cars in Tesco’s car park. Did that feel dangerous? No. Now go walk down the white line of a dual carriageway when it’s flowing. Can you spot the difference?
Are you stupid stationary or not it’s not a good idea to cycle between cars as anything could happen, and have you seen how some of them cycle like lunatics through traffic
What a ridiculous thing to say “ are you just jealous “. Seriously?
Stationary cars aren’t going to suddenly jump left or right so it’s relatively safe. IME the main danger is pedestrians cutting through traffic without looking to see if there’s anything filtering through.
Jealous? Not me Tom, I’ve been driving for over 60 years and still try to learn new things every day and to ‘try’ to have full respect, in many ways, for ALL road users. During that time I’ve traveled on the public highways by means of a wide range of methods. from walking (and hitch hiking), bike riding to quite a few years as a ‘proper’ cyclist, by cars, motor cycles and with sidecars, vans and 4x4s with a large variety and size of trailers, as a bus and coach passenger, of course, farm tractors with many types of implements and large trailers, combine harvesters, track laying machines, and many HGVs. I’ve missed out on driving PSVs and articulated HGVs. That doesn’t make me a ‘know it all’ but it has helped me to understand the issues, limitations and challenges for users, riders and drivers of these methods of travel and hopefully to show suitable respect and allowance for their situations. What I have noticed is a sadly increasing amount of arrogance, selfishness and utter stupidity from an increasing number of road users but especially, it often seems, from many pedestrians as well as bicycle and motor bicycle riders who, regardless of what they do themselves, want to blame All other road users for every thing that happens to them!! Tom, you and everyone knows that when many bike riders (and a few ‘proper cyclists’) “.. filter through traffic ..”, they are creating the very situations which, far too often, result in their own injuries – for which some then want, and try, to blame others – and, of course, when doing that they are placing the vehicle drivers into the ‘driving too close to the cyclist’ position and 3 points, large fines but often without them actually moving their vehicle. All in all, attitudes like yours show utter selfishness and total lack of respect for anybody else.
God help any cyclist who damaged my car squeezing through
But the driver isn’t supposed to drive alongside a cyclist, according to the new law. What is the legal situation when a cyclist is weaving through slower moving traffic?
Not when cyclists jump on the footpath back and then back on the road. obey the rules of the road or end up getting hit. But that would be the motorists fault i suppose.
No problem for the motorist. If the cyclist undertakes at speed and runs into an opening door, it is the cyclist who will end up in hospital.
Jealous!… don’t be an idiot, you don’t see drivers weaving in and out all over the place at traffic lights! A bicycle is a vehicle, when I was young you were expected to ride a bicycle in the same manner as in a car… for example, when stopping at lights YOU DID NOT weave yourself to the front, you stopped behind the car/vehicle in front of you! It IS a problem, when I was driving down Victoria Street, in London a few years ago I ended up missing a red light after having a prat on a bicycle insisting on trying to throw himself through my windscreen and I was trying to avoid killing the numpty and missed the signals, and I was then pulled over by the Police (that was immediately behind me) for the light infraction… no further action was taken though once I had the chance to explain and the police agreed that the cyclist had a death wish, my job at the time relyed on having a licence and not only would a driving offence got me locked up by my employer I would not have been able to do my job and therefore be discharged losing my livelihood, and all because a prat wanted to be a d**k on his bicycle… they can be a dangerous irresponsible menace, not everyone, generally cyclist can follow the rules but there are the exception, arrogant idiots.
It’s illegal to undertake if some opens their door and a cyclist crashes into the door they could easily be killed!
That’s never going to kill or injure you. That’s the difference. I often have motor bikes and cycles do that, no problem, I just feel a bit envious they can proceed and I can’t!
No you’re right but it can kill or injure the cyclist by the cyclist putting it’s self in the blind spot of a lorry, bus etc.
If you are saying that cyclists aren’t going to kill someone, your wrong deaths to pedestrians since 2006 have doubled, admittedly not as many as cyclists killed by cars.
The figures are so low that ‘doubling’ is going from 1 to 2.
The review is using figures from 2011-216. In that time 20 pedestrians were killed in collision with cyclists. None were on footways btw. Of the 20, 4 were attributable to the cyclist. 6 the pedestrian, 5 jointly.
There were 10,667 road fatalities in the same 5 years.
Finally, puts things into perspective.
Around here at the weekend the problem is big groups of cyclists riding 3 or 4 abreast down A roads, often through towns swell as in the countryside, making it very difficult to pass them and leave suitable clearance between them and your car. Also when they reach a junction they don’t use and hand signal, so no one knows which way they are turning. Something needs to be done about the standard of cycling on our roads!
Quality anecdotal data right there. *thumbs up*
Isn’t it unlawful to ride more than one abreast or has the law changed since I last rode a bicycle some sixty years ago?
No its actually recommended . Its a lot easier to overtake say 6 cyclists when they are 2 abreast rather than single file.
Rubbish !
Tell Surrey Road Cops. Here’s a handy diagram from them https://goo.gl/images/NBxcdW
No, it’s not unlawful.
It may be illegal, the problem is enforcement…. not enough police.
Riding two abreast is not illegal, neither is riding more than two abreast.
Absolutely – buses and coaches are driving 5 abreast!
The 2018 Highway Code ( https://toptests.co.uk/highway-code/ ) rule 64 says never ride more than 2 abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
Correct Stephen. However, you’ll notice it doesn’t say that you MUST NOT. The reason being is it’s not against the law.
It’s also slightly bizarrely, the opposite of what the government’s Bikeability cycle training scheme says cyclists should do. Almost like one part of government (the Highway Code people) don’t talk to cyclists.
it might not be illegal ……. but it is f…….ing IGNORANT and incredibly STUPID !!!
It’s changed
Why shouldn’t they require licence, tax & insurance? They CLAIM they are responsible – PROVE IT ! Fine them when they jump red. Ban them when they don’t hand signal. Fine them when they hog the lanes. Oh how DARE I expect them to obey the highway code!
“Why shouldn’t they require licence, tax & insurance?”
Because this will act as a way to prevent uptake in cycling, which will in turn increase the volume of cars on the road, increase traffic and congestion, increase pollution, reduce general health of the population, increase strain on the NHS treating obesity and heart problems. and so on….
Who says all the “new” cycists wont simply by an “electric” bike…. minimalist pedalling, little exercise, no (fictional) improvement in general health, increase strain on the NHS treating more cyclists who have either collided with a vehicle, street furniture etc, no improvement in obesity. Cyclists who use the asset of a public highway must abide by the same rules as all other users….
If they wont get some kind of training, if they wont carry insurance, then they wont get to use the road..
and..
Think of all the pollution generated when all the electric bikes are plugged into their chargers for use the next day. think of the strain on the NHS caused by all that pollution….
Trickcyclist
1. Ebikes are expensive compared to standard bikes.
2. Even Ebikes have shown to improve fitness – you still have to pedal.
3. Most cyclists have insurance. There’s plenty of cars on the road that don’t.
4. You’re really clutching at straws here. Theres plenty of electricity coming from Turbines and Solar Farms. The conventional power stations pollution don’t come out at street level in the big cities. Also – lets think how much power it takes – A bike and rider 100kg or so. A car – 1500-2000+Kg. You do the maths.
Tom, Are you sure!!! Your comment seems that you are grasping at straws to find a viable reason to support your veiws that some form of Liability Insurance would not be advantagous to both sides of this argument and the state of the populations health would suffer if implemented. I for one do ride a motorbike and pay insurance and VED, but still face many of the problems that cyclists do, so why should cyclists not have to have some form of insurance also.
I just get the feeling that, no matter what, Paul, with your hateful and ignorant rantings, you’re just bitterly against cyclists.
Did you fall off when you were a kid (about a week ago, by the sound of it), perhaps scuffing your knee or an elbow, and vowed never to ride again?
Do you bully cyclists as revenge for your awful experience (that’s what a coward would do, after all)?
Perhaps you have obesity issues and feel that you’d look ridiculous on a bike; or perhaps you have balance issues.
Anyway, whatever Your Problem is, and if you really just cannot cope like a grown-up, it can easily be fixed by you relinquishing your Driving Licence and giving up driving altogether.
That way there is less chance of an accident caused by your impatience, intolerance, bitterness and exasperation towards other road users.
I thank you in advance for your gracious sacrifice in the name of road safety.
Insulting and shaming people who have different opinions to your own is becoming very common these days. It’s a highly unpleasant way of holding a discussion, and may I say, childish. Brings to mind pots and kettles.
Paolo, maybe your comment ie. “That way there is less chance of an accident caused by your impatience, intolerance, bitterness and exasperation towards other road users”. should also apply to cyclists who behave in such a reckless manner.
Ban them when they don’t signal? Blimey, if we could ban every car driver that fails to signal the roads would be beautifully quiet!
Paul – Wow, ban people who don’t signal? That’s a bit severe. Audi drivers wouldn’t like that.
Phil, apart from pro-teams, I’ve never seen your average lycra-clad cyclists continually ride along a stretch of road four abreast, but I have seen them two abreast, which is perfectly safe & legal.
It’s known as Blocking and is used to prevent d**k-heads from overtaking dangerously, eg by small single-lane traffic islands/dividers, blind bends, as on-coming traffic approaches, etc.
As break levers are on handlebars, it can often be difficult to make hand signals but, where possible, move to the right if turning right, usually after the Lifesaver look over their right shoulder.
When you realise some of this, your Common Sense should kick-in and tell you not to try to pin cyclists to the kerb or swerve in immediately ahead of them, causing them to stop suddenly almost colliding with your precious battering-ram of choice, as you approach junctions.
However, if you’re still confused about any of your issues, mate, or have trouble working these things out for yourself, please don’t hesitate to ask for further advice or information; I can do diagrams . .
Paul. Where I live in a rural part of Kent there have been many occasions at weekends where I have seen Group Cyclists riding as if it were the Tour De France with many riders sometimes four or five abreast riding at speed with no regard for other road users.
Shame your so called Common Sense kick in never seems to apply to these riders and the abuse that is offered to other road users who are attempting to pass them is very colourful indeed. So I can see no use of advice from you.
I think you’ve just answered your own question Pablo, cyclists RIDING, not driving, too close means that you haven’t left the legally required distance, therefore eliminating the act of squeezing through the narrow gaps that you have given them. I suggest that drivers have a go at cycling to appreciate the problem and it may help with their own health into the bargain.
The same applies to cyclist, it should be policy that they spend a day with a semi trailer truck and see how difficulty it is with cyclist riding up blind spots for the driver to see them!
I already do cycle thanks… and so do many others…. if a cyclist squeezes between two cars then under this new law either of both of these vehicles, even thought they may be stationary, are suddenly breaking the law.
I’m sure it says to give cyclist more room when “passing” them? How could either of the cars in your scenario be considered as “passing” the cyclist if they are both stationary?