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?
What planet are you on? What he is trying to say is that cyclists squeeze into a gap that is not 1.5 mtr wide. If the car was there first the cyclist should wait behind if the gap isnt wide enough, not scrape through and damage somebody’s property without a care in the wrold. You have just shown your true colours………….selfish! Like most cyclists!!
It is a very good point as a driver I see the cyclist flout the laws daily.When are they going to be forced to obey the law.When will they be stopped from overtaking cars moving slow due to traffic.When are the going to be forced to obey traffic signs and lights.Dont blame the car driver every time until you can get the cyclist to do this!.
“When will they be stopped from overtaking cars moving slow due to traffic.” ?
You are kidding? You’re expecting cyclists to sit in queues behind traffic?
Why not? How else is the 1.5 meter clearance to be enabled?
The 1.5m clearance only applies to motor vehicles.
What about the one that came around a corner of a one way street to wrong way in front of me accelerating up a hill? If I did not have quick reactions he would be one less idiot on the road.
Sounds like a bit of jealousy there.
moron !
Identity plates and insurance should be mandatory.
Maybe the law should also state that a cyclist cannot undertake a vehicle on the road unless there is at least a 1.5 meter gap?
The problem is many novice cyclists are not confident enough to overtake on the right and stupid road infrastructure that places painted on cycle lanes on the left or ASL feed in lanes on the left. Then you have drivers telling cyclists to keep left too.
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.
Pablo a collision between a car and a cyclist will result in death or life changing injuries for a unprotected cyclist, no motorist has ever been killed in a collision with a cyclist, so tell everyone pablo who really is worse off, if you can’t work that out you need re-educating.
Try walking through a car park with stationary cars. Then, try walking on the carriage of a motorway. Which is safer?
The legislation is a realistic safety measure, but there has to be a better “Think Tank” at Council level. I am aware of a road which was originally four lanes, (2 in each direction) which was converted to three lanes and a bus lane. Given the new space under the legislation, motorists will not be able to overtake on what will be a single carriageway in ONE direction.
The cycling groups have succeeded in pressurising the authorities for space, but this has resulted in more cycling on footways, often at road speed. Recently saw a cyclist riding in a pedestrianised NO CYCLING zone at road speed, no hands, using a mobile smart phone. Cyclists don’t normally have any form of insurance, and often if involved in a collision, just ride off.
Lets us not forget pedestrians came BEFORE cyclists !
If the government want to encourage more cyclists to “ride around town” perhaps they should look to fill all the potholes in and make the roads suitable first.
The law regarding motorists is fine so long as cyclists then travel 0.75m from the kerb and not in the middle of the road or 2/3 abreast, perhaps cyclists should be fined £100 if they are caught doing that.
They can ride wherever in the lane they want to. Cycling centrally in the lane isn’t called ‘primary position’ – it’s done to prevent unnecessary and dangerous overtakes on blind bends, at pinch points, etc and helps with visibility on the road, in particular when approaching risky situations like crossroads.
They’re also allowed to not cycle single-file. Think about it, a group of 4 cyclists in to rows of 2 will be safer/quicker to overtake than a group of 4 in single-file strung-out over 15-20metres.
The highway code states to travel as far to the left of the carriageway as possible. It does NOT say in the centre of the lane.
Show me where in the highway code it states this Roy.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Well, it looks like the new law is suggesting that the cyclist should be 0.75m from the kerb (see the pic at top of article here).
The picture is not the new law. This article is wrong. The new law is under consideration. Police will prosecute you under the old law.
The picture shows a mat the police use to educate drivers as to typically where cyclists cycle and the minimum gap they should leave of 1.5m. 0.75m is roughly what cyclists are trained to cycle at when riding in “secondary position”. The default position is “primary” which is used to control traffic if the road isn’t wide enough for cars to pass. See https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability–Part-4–On-Road-Positioning-0
Bikeability is the government’s official cycling standard – what used to be “Cycling Proficiency”.
Hang on – you CLAIM it’s safer, yet then demand you be given room! WHICH IS IT? Cannot be both! IIf real people are going to be fined for not giving you scum space, you better well stay single file & no more than 0.75m. Either that or NEVER moan – as you are the cause of the problems- not honest people WHO PAY FOR THE ROADS YOU SCUM USE!
A lot of the issues are around attitudes……and yours stinks!!!
Here we go a sick car driver who thinks he owns all the road and pays for it personally, don’t you think all cyclists might own a car as well.
NO !!!
Tom, you can’t educate pork; it just doesn’t want to listen to anything other than its own echo chamber
Where does it say in the Highway Code 2018 they’re also allowed to not cycle single-file.
Yes excellent idea. I find some cyclist arrogant and challenging in their claim for road space. They ignore red lights, ignore pedestrians and assume if they are on a bike with a camera that everyone else will ensure they the cyclist, will have priority pecking order for road space and they are right.
Now lol at stats of car accidents and injury. Cyclists will pale into insignificance.
What about cyclists who in traffic travel in between traffic and within 8 to 10 inches either side of Vehicles or even closer. If one loses control and goes under a lorry whose fault is that !, And who is to blame
The Lorry driver or the immune to Government laws cyclist.
Now Traffic Lights many of cyclists go through RED LIGHTS what happens if one gets wiped out by oncoming vehicle.
Will driver get charged with man slaughter.
And sent to jail for driving through a green or amber light when to close to Traffic Lights to stop which happens legally every day. British law stinks – but it’s about to get worse under one World Ruling Government if when Brussels get their way.
that’s another part of the campaign that is wrong, implying cyclists should cycle 0.75m from the side of the road, that’s the minimum distance and cyclists are also fully entitled to take the lane. You should always move onto the wrong side of the road or a lane further out to overtake a cyclist as per Highway code rule 163 and also noting highway code rule 211, 212 & 213.
There are two main cycling road positions, as taught by modern cycling proficiency courses, the secondary position which is typically a metre out from the kerb but can be more and the primary position which is the centre of the traffic stream (taking the lane)
cyclists are also taught
“Never hug the kerb. That’s rule one of road positioning on a bicycle. You need to be further out into the road, sometimes right in the middle of the traffic stream. Less assertive cyclists worry that being further out may put them in the way of the traffic. It won’t: you are the traffic. Being in the traffic stream helps you to get treated like traffic.”
“”By riding further out from the edge of the road, you force following traffic to overtake you properly instead of squeezing past dangerously close. Are you inconveniencing anyone? Only those drivers who would not have overtaken you safely in the first place.
As a rule of thumb, your distance from the kerb is the same distances that drivers will give you when overtaking.”
“If you can keep up with the traffic, such as around town, it’s safest to take the lane. It’s also the position to adopt when you want to dissuade drivers from doing something stupid, like cutting you up. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of situations when it’s best to take the lane.
• Approaching a pinch point, such as pedestrian island in the centre of the road.
• Approaching and negotiating a roundabout.
• Approaching Give Way markings.
• Approaching a side road, to prevent drivers from ‘left-hooking’ you and to help drivers on the side road to see you.
• Approaching traffic lights.
• Approaching a blind corner.
• Negotiating a junction.
• In queues of stationary traffic.
• Overtaking parked cars.”
Another ENTITLED TWAT !!!
How will the police enforce the many poor cyclists speeding and disregarding the rules of our roads, pavements and public spaces. Irresponsible Cyclists now over take 20mph compliant drivers. Drivers of vehicles are trained, insured and traceable via their number plate. What will ministers to make this fair?
It’s not actually against the law to cycle faster than 20mph in a 20mph zone, not that there’s many drivers sticking to 20.
It is hard to do over 20mph. There’s really not many people that do this. And also bikes don’t have to have speedometers.
And lets look at why the limit is there. Your car is probably what 1500kg ? A cyclist and bike is under 100kg.
So IF the cyclist hits someone the forces and the damage are a lot less.
I worked this out a while back. A VW Golf travelling at 25mph has the same kinetic energy as a cyclist travelling at 112mph. Or the other way round, a cyclist at 25mph has the same KE as a Golf at 6mph.
It’s clearly nonsense when drivers claim we’re all equally responsible for our actions unless they’re driving around at about 6mph.
To be fair 6mph is about the average speed for most cars where I cycle through West London…
So, can they be done for under taking too close as well then? You know, when they clip your door mirror with their handle bars?
Did they hurt your mirror’s feelings or something? It’s a mirror, designed for the occasional clipping – THAT’S WHY IT MOVES WHEN HIT
In which case then does it hurt the bikes feeling when it is clipped by a caring motorist? It’s a bike, designed and operated by a cyclist for an occasional clipping. THAT’S WHY HANDLEBARS TURN WHEN HIT
Dont be stupid all your life ! Have a day off.
Are you more than 9 years old Tom ?
Selfish ignorant entitled TWAT !!!
We have a road with a wide cycle lane but due to the lack of room barely enough room for a small car to fit in the space of the car lane let alone buses or lorries who must be encroaching on space in the cycle lane. It stupid. All stupid and town planners and the councils are completely bonkers in how and where they put cycle lanes, pedestrian crossings and traffic lights. We also have one short length of road with three pedestrian crossings in less than 125 metres of road. Bedlam. To say nothing of the increased fumes due to cars stopping and starting. Why aren’t these overhead pedestrian crossings?
Those of us who drive to work BECAUSE we do community home visits, therefore, a job impossible to do on a bicycle are stressed due to the traffic, wasting more time than ever getting to work only to find there is no parking and ending up with tickets. I am considering leaving my job in the NHS at a time of huge staff shortages.
So give bikes these priorities, make new laws etc but it won’t help those who support patients in the community who can’t cycle to work. Actually, the law is an a**e. Police don’t solve 90% of the crimes committed and we are supposed to believe they will be watching drivers passing cyclists on the road to implement this law. And so into the real world…..
I am a cyclist myself as well as a car driver. As much as I agree with this, what does annoy when you have groups of cyclists 2 abreast which makes it so much harder to overtake without affecting the oncoming traffic.
All the time on bellvale and Cronton rd liverpool
Don’t bloody overtake then! Leave a bit earlier if you’re in that much of a rush. If you haven’t got 2.25m of space between the kerb and the outside of your lane, then there isn’t room. If you can’t overtake fully in the next lane then use a bit of sense…
So Chris,, everyone should change their routine because cyclist say so???
No, don’t change your routine because cyclists say so, change it because a) it’s already the law b) you’d be a massive bellend if you just ran in to people because you disagreed with being held up and extra 20 seconds.
If you have to stick to the law on the country roads where I live and where you can get a dozen or more cyclists riding two abreast you could be following for miles before the road is wide enough to overtake and not even sure what you are supposed to do if you are approaching and meet them on one of the many bends
Could not agree more! Here in Dorset many roads also have cycle designation. Farm vehicles are also much wider these days. Just typical knee jerk legislation to an obvious increase in cycle incidents because more bikes are being used without taking the rural situations into account. What is more as drafted even when overtaking an abreast situation the onus is going to be on the driver and has not given cyclists any responsibility to ride with consideration for other users.
Looks like dash cams are in for a boom in sales. If this country had been genuine about cycling then more crosscountry cycle paths should have been built and perhaps in many cases more old railways adapted all those years ago.
M
” What is more as drafted even when overtaking an abreast situation the onus is going to be on the driver and has not given cyclists any responsibility to ride with consideration for other users.”
Are you an idiot? Of course the onus is on the overtaking vehicle. If you’re complaining about being unable to overtake cyclists, then I assume you also have issues in overtaking cars and horses, both of which are much wider than the average cyclist – Maybe you should hand your licence back to the DVLA because it sounds like you’re incompetent.
As a motorist and cyclist who lives in Dorset, I hope we never meet on the road.
So if the onus is on a motorist when overtaking a cyclist, what onus is on a cyclist when it is filtering (and therefore by default both overtaking and undertaking). Cyclists need to wise up and obey the law
The same onus on drivers overtaking. ie. to not hit the vehicle you’re overtaking. The difference being that a stationary car isn’t going to be affected by 85kg of cyclist/bike no matter how closely they pass whereas if a car passed 6 inches off a cyclist, you get sucked into the draft caused by the car.
Undertaking is what undertakers do btw.
Because you did not need a licence to ride your bike on public roads you can say that which just demonstrates your selfish ignorant attitude!
You are both responsible, cyclist and car driver. Who’s the idiot?
Why is that any different to an HGV or tractor?
“If you have to stick to the law”
Just read that back to yourself there Tim.
I really want to know when cyclists get fined and with penalty points for going within 1.5 metres of a car! It is usually the other way around! If they are encouraging more cycling, then it is high time the cyclist takes a cycling test including all road laws! There are a lot of cyclists out there, who do not have a driving test!
filtering, driving side by side with another road user in the same lane, is legal for motorbikes & cycles in slow moving or stationery traffic, it is not legal for cars, vans & lorries.
Er, Bob, you are wrong. Rule 163 says that car drivers can ‘undertake’ in certain circumstances: “if the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left.” So, yes, it is legal for cars to do so.
But definitely NOT for motorcyclists…!
“… Legal for motorbikes…?” OH NO IT IS NOT! It is an offence contrary to the RTA, punishable by up to 6 penalty points and £1000 fine!
Almost all cyclists are also drivers. It’s something like 80-90%.
CVB. Are you seriously suggesting you feel your life is in danger from someone on a bicycle? Maybe it is high time you tried riding a bicycle? You will then be better able to understand the dangers faced by other people.
There doesn’t seem to be a law for cyclists who ride on the pavement, alarming and harming pedestrians.
I couldn’t agree more! The avenue on which I live has been given a cycle lane but cyclists still use the pavement and make walking my dog quite hazardous.
When you say “given a cycle lane”, what do you mean? I bit of white paint down the kerb, which does nothing except make motorists mistakingly think that that is where the cycles should stay?
No, not “a bit of white paint down the curb” but a proper lane marked out clearly on the road. I’m fed up dodging out of the way of cyclists whizzing down the pavement as if it’s their right. In the evenings very few have lights on their bikes…. don’t get me started on that issue…
Likewise, why should I be giving space to a cyclist who decides to ride on the road and ignore the designated cycle track.
If cyclists want road respect they need to respect the road!
Because cyclists are entitled to use the roads by right. Roads are usually quicker than cycle lanes, often badly designed and may contain slower less experienced cyclists.
Oh, boo boo! Slower cyclists get in your way on cycle lanes. Now you know how motorists feel stuck behind cyclists laboriously chugging up hill at 5 miles an hour.
And your point is?
What you mean as a cyclist using a cycle lane you have to cross the roads using proper lighted crossings, and not jump red lights. Oh please, it has cost the poor council money to make these cycle lanes, at least have the decency to use them! It has probably been at the expense of the social fund in the area, or something.
I haven’t said anything of the sort Jue. I never jump red lights. Cycle lanes can be great for new cyclists, kids, families. They’re not generally the place for me. My commute is 18km. I average about 26km/h. On the flat I do about 30-40km/h. I’ve a big hill which sometimes sees me hit 70km/h+. There are no cycle lanes on my commute but I wouldn’t use them anyway given the speed I travel.
Actually. I’ve just remembered there is some cycle lane. There’s a 20m long shared path, with pedestrians near the train station to avoid a bit of roundabout. It then takes you through an underpass full of water and broken glass. It spits you back out onto the road again. About 4km further on, there’s two 5m stretches of faded painted cycle lane through a traffic island. I don’t use that either as if you did you get close passed by car drivers squeezing you in. There’s potholes in the road just past the cycle lane. You end up in the pothole if you use the lane. There you go. 25m out of 18km. None of it worth using.
So campaign for better cycle lanes. IF you use the road – like car users who use the road, be respectful and obey the laws, and hopefully you will have a long and healthy life. Respect others and treat others as you wish to be treated. I wished I could cycle to work but I have to use my car for home visits, and a cycle would not carry the stuff I have to carry. Time to give up NHS and get a life I think!
twat !
A well thought out, educated reply mike. (That’s called “sarcasm” by the way).
Shaun, you are just a self-righteous, sanctimonious twaddler!
Go and get a REAL LIFE!
So you are talking about a bit of paint down the side of the road? Maybe I confused you by say “kerb”. A bit of paint 0.1mm thick doesn’t offer a lot of protection from cars/lorries. Do you chase your grandson off the pavement onto the road?
Depends on how how well planned the cycle lane is.
Some councils might well not have bothered painting them as they place cyclists in the car Door Zone.
How many motorists have heard of the Dutch Reach? Barely any.
Should give pedestrians one and a half metres of space… simple
Motorists and cyclists alike
There is “According to Laws HA 1835 section 72 & RSA 1984, section 129, cyclists must not cycle on the pavement. Cyclists can use bus lanes when permitted to by road signs.” Like alot of laws not enforced
The guidance to the police from the then home secretary Paul Boateng was that police officers should use discretion and not issue fines to cyclists on pavements if they were cycling there because they felt the roads not as safe.
There is a law for cycling on the pavement which carry a £60 fine but nobody enforces it 😡
True a bit like parking on the bloody pavements nobody enforces that either and my poor mum in her wheel chair risks her life and limbs using the road space instead, but me, I enjoy pushing her along the road, it give me great pleasure to hear a car chugging along behind us getting more and more frustrated. As I pointed out to one such driver, where would you have us go, the pavements are blocked or can’t you see that far, in which case should YOU even be on th road.
The law is in the form of “NO CYCLING” signs which local Authorities erect. Trouble is some cyclists either cannot read or choose to disobey.
Councils cannot enforce the law, only the Police, who are in short supply.
Bylaws cover cyclists riding on pavements as some LAs accept that, in some situations, its better for the cyclist to ride, carefully, on the pavement rather than be mowed over by motorists only intent/focused on getting through the next set of lights.
Well there is. And more motor vehicles kill pedestrains on footpaths each year than cycles do.
There is a cyclist law 64 saying you must not cycle on a pavement but they don’t know the law as they don’t have to bother learning the Highway Code unlike all other road users.
Cyclists shouldn’t be on the road unless they are capable which probably means they should be examined before going on the road.
It should be compulsory to wear a helmet.
They should not be allowed to use a bike that is too big or small for them. At the moment children are a menace if they borrow an unsuitable bike.
They should also be insured. Having suffered a child on his father’s bike coming down a hill from a side road and smashing into the side of my moving car, it was frustrating to find I was responsible for the considerable damage to my car and then find that my insurance company was responsible for paying for the ambulance to take the child to hospital (his father was in the pub at the time).
Cyclists should be made to wear helmets. They can go as fast and are as vulnerable as mopeds. If they want to use the road, they should be prepared to take some responsibility.
OMG that’s disgraceful!
Why should I “have” to wear a helmet? So that you “think” I’m better protected and can therefore pull out in front of me, drive too close, cut me up, etc, etc?
I’ve been a keen leisure cyclist for over 40 yrs. Aged 16, in 1976, I cycled from my home in Durham to Cornwall and back in the school holidays, 99.99% on main roads as there were practically no cycle lanes at all in those days. And believe me, the roads were still plenty busy back then. I remember hearing the same thing then as I do today, “the roads are too busy these days to cycle on”.
I’ve had plenty of accidents over the years, including an incident very similar to the one shown in the video above, except I was going up a hill, moving a lot slower so the result wasn’t quite as dramatic. Just 3 weeks ago I was riding past a junction when a car pulled out and hit me broadside. And what’s the 1st thing the driver always says? “Sorry mate, didn’t see you”. And then they get all defensive and up set when I “get annoyed”.
But despite all of my accidents, I refuse yo wear a helmet. If it should, heaven forbid, ever become compulsory, I will either give up riding or rack up lots of unpaid fines/convictions for not wearing one. Look at what happened in Australia when helmets were made compulsory.
For young children I can maybe see some point. But for adults, well, we’re adults. Pedestrians often suffer head injuries in accidents too, maybe they should have to wear then as well. Better still, lets make it illegal to leave the house unless you are wear full, high visibility body armour. Better safe than sorry.
It looks as if you are one of the 1% of sensible, responsible cyclists.
Why do you think it became compulsory for motor cyclist to wear crash helmets? Perhaps you feel cyclist have heads that will not be broken if hit hard! The mind boggles at the stupidity of you comments!
Motorcyclists travel at speeds far in excess of cyclists. That’s why they were made compulsory. Secondly, they’ve got a motor so a heavy helmet that protects in high speed road collisions is usable. The helmets cyclists wear are good up to a drop of 1.5m to tarmac at 14mph and need to be light and vented. They’re not much good in accidents with cars.
But if we’re talking helmets, why aren’t car drivers wearing them? There’s far more head injuries in collisions involving cars than bicycles.
They have airbags in most cars now love, drivers and front passengers don’t need a helmet……. and it would be a little silly, whereas on a bike, as you cyclists keep telling us, you are more vulnerable and cars are bigger, and go faster, so your impact injuries to your head are going to be more serious than to our heads as car drivers, if we hit you or you hit us……. it really is not rocket science. The brain (bless it) is a mere organ and like jelly in a bowl, it wobbles alarmingly if there is a shock/ hit or impact to our skull. A bit like dropping jelly in a plastic container, the container will be fine but the jelly will be all smashed up. Getting the picture of what happens to your brain if you have a sharp blow to your head ie impact injury as in falling off your bike onto the floor head first!
As you said it is your choice whether to protect the organ that allows you to make that choice in the first place. Good luck with that, I hope you continue to be lucky.
Yes, cars have airbags, however, the primary cause of death in motoring incidents is STILL severe head injury and those far outnumber cycling deaths. If you’re serious about saving lives, start with car helmets.
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/3494/1/3494.pdf
What a lot of stupid, poorly thought-out rubbish!
Cyclists can easily reach speeds of 45mph nowadays, so are just as vulnerable – yet far less responsible as regards their own safety! I drive a large motorcycle as well as a car – so I KNOW!! I have to observe the speed-limits and other “rules of the road” on motorcycle or in car, yet cyclists where I live simply could not care less about their own safety!
“Stupid, poorly though-out rubbish” – that would be the DfT’s official study.
I don’t agree with motor cyclists having to wear helmets. They do, of course, travel much, much faster than bicycles and if I rode one I would probably choose to wear a helmet.
Did you know that cycle helmets, while reducing the risk of head injuries actually increase the risk of neck injuries?
So here is a scenario. I have a bad accident on my bike and bang my head, (not, in my experiance, actually very common.) Luckily for me I’m wearing a helmet, so I am saved from ending up in a permanent vegetative state, (a state in which my NOK has instructions to turn off any machines keeping me alive.)
However, despite the helmet saving all of my cognitive ability, I am, unfortunatley, paralysed from the neck down due a broken neck.
I’ll take the 1st option.
You wear a helmet to protect your head…. You may fall off due to diesel spillages, potholes, dogs running into the road…. Failure to do some outs you at risk of major head trauma if you have an accident and you next set of wheels will the possibly be attached to your new “wheelchair”.
Take responsibility for your own safety.. you know it makes sense.
Clearly never seen someone in casualty who was not wearing a helmet, I would enforce helmet wearing and make helmets far safer, I would also enforce protective clothing as well. Or they pay their own NHS bill every time they have an accident.
And fat drivers can pay for their own gastric bands and type 2 diabetes treatment.
Exclude metabolic disorders and if the fatness is purely life style choice and not down to poverty – then yes I agree with you, as with smoking or drug taking. However most of the health inequality is down to poverty, rather than life style choices. Until we have a government who takes health inequality seriously we are a bit doomed in the NHS. Lives will be lost due to ignorance, poor education and poor government messages about diet, which even the government are confused about.
I was of course being somewhat glib but in general the medical profession, BMA etc are against helmet compulsion as the health benefits to society as a whole outweigh the occasional head injury to a cyclist. Occasionally you’ll see a report, almost always from a neurologist working in emergency services, who is in favour of helmet compulsion but then they’re seeing a lot of head injuries and not necessarily looking at the entire population.
Well said Jue – a very valid point!
motorists involved in a road traffic accident are more likely than cyclists to suffer a serious head injury so by that logic all motor vehicle drivers & passengers should be required to wear a helmet, there’s a strong argument for forcing all pedestrians to wear a helmet too given the number in accidents who suffer head injuries. None of rules, however, would make people drive more safely.
accident deaths and injuries in all transport, motor vehicles but especially buses & trains could be dramatically reduced if all passenger seats were required to face the rear of the vehicle, then in a collision or any sudden stop, passengers would tend to be be pushed into their seat rather than thrown out of it but we still make vehicles with passenger seats facing the front
Its called seat belts mate, then there is air bags…. And some people do drive safely, and some cyclists also…. its why we call them accidents.
Do you believe that idiot who was speeding on his track cycle with no brakes when he killed that mother of two actually though for one instant that would happen?
“that idiot”? Charlie Alliston, was doing 18mph before shouting a warning at the pedestrian, who froze. He braked but not quickly enough as he only had one brake. It could have happened jogging frankly but because his bike was defective and he was an idiot – jail time.
No helmet required because cars already have safety features such a seat belts and crumple zones. Not yetseen that on a bike!
That’s fine Elvis but while those reduce the number of head injuries, they don’t entirely prevent them. Severe head trauma is still the number one cause of death in car accidents and there’s more of those than cycling deaths caused by head trauma. So, logically, if you want to prevent the greatest number of deaths from head trauma, start with the greatest number – car drivers.
You don’t make any valid point, Fiona.
Most motorists aren’t capable, despite being tested.
Kids, eh?
Cyclists are only vulnerable to either idiot drivers, or themselves.
When a motorist sees a cyclist wearing a helmet, it seems like they think they have more excuse to ride closer/dangerously, thinking “Well, if I knock him off, he won’t be as badly injured” . .
Quite a few cyclists on this thread outraged at the suggestion of mandatory safety helmets. So tell me, does this “why should I?” attitude permeate all aspects of cycling?
Cyclists object to mandatory helmet laws because it should be a personal decision to wear one or not. Where they have been made compulsory, cycling numbers have declined making conditions worse on the roads for those that still wish to cycle. Helmets don’t make it less likely you’ll be hit by cars and in some research studies, it’s been shown to INCREASE the likelihood of being hit as car drivers pass closer thinking you’re miraculously protected by your 230g polystyrene hat.
It should be mandatory to use cycle lanes that are provided as well as law to use a helmet, end of. You want protection, well when it is there is it not used, I see many many cyclists chosing to ignore the cycle lanes, why?? it is there so use it. Or stop moaning.
If cycle lanes were well designed, maintained and went where we wanted, we’d voluntarily use them. They often don’t. Some are ok for casual cycling or families only.They’re not the place to be travelling 25km/h+ on on your way to work.
Helmets are a personal choice. Why don’t you wear one Jue? You’re more likely to suffer a head injury in a car than on a bike.
Off course it does, that way cyclists run red lights, cycle on the pavement, ride across pedestrian crossing etc, etc, etc.
“Cyclists shouldn’t be on the road unless they are capable which probably means they should be examined…” – and preferably by a Consultant Psychiatrist! Most of the cyclists I pass seem to think that they are super-human and indestructible!
“Cyclists should be made to wear helmets…” as well as other protective clothing – e.g. abrasion-resistant motorcycle-standard clothing! I know – anyone who has come off of a two-wheeled vehicle at more than 30 mph will lose most (if not all) of their muscle and skin on their arms and legs!
“They can go as fast as, and are as vulnerable as mopeds…” actually, most modern cycles can be peddled much faster than mopeds!
If they want to use the road, they should be prepared to take (some??) NO – FULL responsibility for their choice, instead of “passing the buck” of blame onto everyone else!!
How about making it law that cyclists dont ride two or more abreast making it difficult or impossible for car drivers etc to get passed, how about making it law that cyclists have to have insurance, how about enforcing the law when cyclists just donr take any notice of red lights
It’s often safer for everyone riding two or more abreast and quicker for you to overtake safely. Most cyclists have insurance already.
Cyclists do get done for passing red lights when the police are around. I’m all for it.
Motorists jump red lights too – only the risk of them killing someone is about 1000 times greater than for a cyclist.
As to riding two abreast – its less distance for you to overtake. Ask the police if you want.
Will this new rule apply to cyclists riding two abreast? Also is it against the new rules to sound your horn every
time you intend to overtake a cyclist in order to overtake in safety (shock them into awareness of your
intension to overtake ).
It’s nice to know that cyclists are behind protected by the law but what about horses and their riders? The speed and closeness that some drivers get to horses is ridiculous.
It’s actually the same Rule in the Highway Code – Rule 163 – that is being revised. It applies to horses also.
Cyclists should be fined if they DO not ride in dedicated cycle zones where one is provided. People on racing bikes are the worst because they cannot ride fast enough. Some cycle paths are for pedestrians as well. They should also be insured .
Not sure my 5 year old daughter will be able to afford fully comp insurance on her £1 per week pocket money m8.
Tough
Riding in cycle lanes is optional, which is not surprising when you consider that most are not fit for purpose and, indeed, can be more dangerous than the road. Try them, if you don’t believe me.
Insurance is only compulsory for motor vehicles, which cause ill-health, injury & death due to emissions and poor driving skills, by one or more of their drivers.
But, hey, it’s always better to just have cars, buses & lorries belching out noxious fumes in town & city gridlock, and blame emission-free bicycles, trying to ride easily and freely through the mayhem that motorists cause, for the hold-up.
I gave up owning a car a few years ago as it was easier to cycle, despite the pollution (and the rain) from one end of the city to the other than it was to drive, enduring the frustration of sitting in my car in traffic for what seemed like ages (the final straw was when it took 45mins to drive the four miles from home to work, in the city centre, when I could cycle it in 15mins, even on my hack bike).
Does this now mean that cyclists will have to obey the law and stop at traffic lights when they are on red? If not will they be fined.
Yeah, they’ll be fined when motorist start getting fined for doing the same, albeit at much higher speeds. A motorist running a red/amber gambling will potentially kill, whereas a cyclist doing the same will just annoy another road user. Get some perspective.
Yeah – someone gets irritated having to clean up the red smear!
Like cars don’t do that at all lol
All motorists stop at traffic lights on red, don’t they . .
Why is there no law when iv got right of way to go through green light and cyclist come through on red from opisite side and they ride on pavements
There is a law for this.
Fine cyclists for riding two abreast or wandering into the carriageway to miss drains and potholes, AND, ‘dodging’ red traffic lights by riding on the pavement !
You wan’t cyclists to drive into potholes and drains?
Some bike paths do let you avoid red lights completely legally. It’s great.
FFS – you’ve really missed the point here. You need to leave 1.5M to let the cyclist ride round drains and potholes.
Unless you actually want them to crash ?
We always leave a good distance when passing a cyclist no one whats to hit anyone. But what about when they are riding in three’s or more across the road what do you do then, because most time they do not drop back or go to their part of the road unfortunately some riders are now getting arrogant with the new laws and think they can ride all over the road. We have a dash cam and will now put any incidents like the above recorded on to FB. it is not just drivers at fault. There should be a test for cyclist, road tax and insurance, they are using the roads like the rest of us and should pay their share.
We do in our council tax and the cars we own
‘Their part of the road’?
They’re entitled to use the entire lane. It’s not arrogance on their part here, it’s yours, expecting them to get out of your way.
can we have a law for safe distance for cyclists for pedestrians on footpaths
I had a cyclist cycle so close to me on a joint cycle pathway her front wheel took my shoe off and pitched me forward, had I have been an elderly pedestrian the outcome could have been far worse!
No because they shouldn’t be on the footpaths in the first place
What about the cycle clubs/groups who decide to hog the complete carriageway bunched up in groups of 15-30 cyclists acting as their own peloton and go out not go out not giving a damn for any other road users.
I have no problem with cyclists as I cycle myself but too many don’t obey the law and attract adverse criticism.
If we are going to charge people with offences it cuts both ways….
Couldn’t agree more. I cycle occasionally and obey the rules of the road – they are exactly that, ‘rules of the road’, not just for motorists.
This is a knee jerk reaction and unenforceable. Everyone needs to take responsibility. There are laws in place for motorists and motorists are fined/prosecuted if they flaunt them. The number of times I see cyclists blatantly disregard the laws in London (red lights, riding on pavements etc) is massive. I’ve yet to see a cyclist pulled over for this kind of law breaking. Glasshouses and stones and all that. Get your own house in order first.
“The number of times I see cyclists blatantly disregard the laws in London (red lights, riding on pavements etc) is massive. I’ve yet to see a cyclist pulled over for this kind of law breaking. Glasshouses and stones and all that. Get your own house in order first.”
the difference being that if a motorist breaks a law, then it could end up injuring/killing someone or the driver themselves, whereas if a cyclist breaks a law then it’s usually a slight annoyance to someone else. Motoring is not a right, it’s a privilege.
So a cyclists darting through a red light causing a motorist with right of way to have to take evasive action couldn’t possibly cause injury or even death? Or is your view that if it does it is still the motorist’s fault for not expecting the cyclist to ignore the road signals? Rules of the road apply to ALL road users.
Road users only have ‘right of way’ if the road ahead is clear. A green light at traffic lights
allows traffic to proceed in the direction denoted, if it is safe to do so and there is room on the other side of the intersection. It doesn’t mean ‘go’!
Surely it is time now for all cyclists to take a course and test and then require to be licensed. After that laws should be attached to their cycling behaviour which often leave a lot to be desired and bikes should be regularly stopped and examined for compliance to set standards for example braking ability and night lighting along with luminescent clothing or banding
You want all cyclists to be tested? Well prepare yourself for cyclists being much more assertive on the roads, in particular being aware of primary position, making it much more difficult for motorists to overtake:
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability–Part-4–On-Road-Positioning-0
Mmm Tom. Seems like that isn’t universally popular on here!
Surely it would be better to tackle the people causing the most harm on the roads? That’s drivers. There’s more uninsured drivers on the roads than cyclists.
My objection is that there is nothing to “identify” a bad cyclist. What is wrong with a cycle having registration of£5a year plus, it would support all the necessary road changes that need to be made to accommodate the increase.
There are horror stories on both sides.
Furthermore a cycle doesn’t have a wing mirror so that they are aware of on coming vehicles and therefore ride single file.
Most cycles don’t have a bell when approaching pedestrians
We do share but that sharing should now become ‘equal’ in identifying and responsibility.
Because it would cost more to administer than it would collect, is what is wrong. So it would be seen as punitive, which is true for most if not all the suggestions btl here. Everyone is starting from the default position of “bigger vehicles own the road” which is unsound.
Next time stand in front of a big lorry and see who wins!
Actually, the HC requires cycles to be fitted with a bell – “audible warning of approach” – but there is no cycle MOT!
Maybe that would be a good law to introduce – any pushbike not having a valid MOT could then be seized “on-the-spot” and taken to be crushed, AT THE OWNER’S EXPENSE, together with the same fine for any car being driven without a valid MOT!
“audible warning of approach” – almost every human on the planet has one from birth.
Garbage. Unrealistic and unenforceable. What if a cyclist swerves into a car (it happens)? What if a cyclist comes up the inside of a car too close.
That’s not the same is it ? A cyclist filtering on the inside.
Did you see the video on the site ? Did you see the carnage ?
As both a motorist and a cyclist both sides need to have an awareness of each other at all times. However the emphasis seems to be all on enforcement of the motorist whereas a large number of cyclists think the rules of the road don’t apply to them eg:
– Ignoring red lights
– Cycling the wrong way down one way streets
– Riding on busy pavements (even in town centres) that are not designated cycle ways
– Shooting across pedestrian crossings
– Weaving at speed through other traffic
These are all dangerous for both themselves, pedestrians and other vehicle drivers, but as soon as there is an accident it is the fault of the driver !,
Cars going through red lights get £100 fine and 3 points, cyclists nothing, cars do not squeeze between traffic jams damaging vehicles and banging on roofs, why are motorists made out to be the bad guys.
Because they kill hundreds and injure thousands every year, whereas cyclists do not.
You are really getting your point across, with comment after comment, that you believe that it is fine for cyclists to ignore red lights and to carry on straight through them and the worst that could happen is that they could annoy someone. This shows what an absolute idiot you are. Depending on the type of junction/road layout that requires the lights, said cyclist could end up hitting a pedestrian, getting hit by a car, going into the back or side of a car, causing another road user to take evasive action which then could cause collision, injury, etc. Sounds like you have a real chip on your shoulder, and unjustifiably so.
No, cyclists commit suicide by riding irresponsibly and not obeying the law and rules of the road.
Because statistically they are the bad guys. Over 10,000 deaths in the last 5 years. Only 4 caused by cyclists.
I suspect the fact that motorists they are responsible for over 99% of fatalities would have something to do with it.
What about cyclists travelling too close to vehicles? But as they don’t even have to pass so much as a Cycling Proficiency Test to use public highways, they wouldn’t have to remember any regulations, let alone have insurance for the accidents they cause, nor ensure their bicycle is road-worthy/safe to be on the roads.
There’s an awful lot of whataboutery.
“too close” – no, doesn’t apply.
“Cycling Proficiency Test” – it’s called Bikeability these days. Kids get taught it in schools.
“Insurance” – Most adult cyclists have it already. It costs next to nothing or is included free in your house contents. It costs so little because the risk to insurers is so small.
“roadworthiness” – Again, risk based. More likely to kill yourself than someone else if you’ve no brakes or dodgy steering. It’s not like it’s 1.5 tonnes of car is it?
I always remember what my driving instructor told me in 1966. When passing a pushbike give them enough room to fall off in. I have never hit a cyclist.
Perfect and simple to understand. If only everyone had the brains to adopt that attitude. Big thumbs up.
I’ve been a cyclist or motorcyclist on UK roads continuously for more than 56 years, mainly in busy urban areas including London, Manchester and Leicester for the latest 28 years. I think these changes, including the penalties faced by dangerous cyclists, are long-overdue. However, proof is an issue in the absence of a Police witness. A cyclist’s best defence is alertness: NOT to wear earpieces, switch off the smartphone and leave the iPod behind. Second is to mount one or, better, two action cameras: one on the rider’s helmet, parallel to his/her line of sight and a second fixed to the bike and facing backwards. These may appear expensive but there are more-economical alternatives to the GoPro range. Besides, how much are YOU worth? Record each journey and save those that include near-misses and collisions. The records may also prove that the cyclist did not pass a red traffic light. Although I wear a bike helmet, I understand some cyclists’ antipathy to them: they do not provide good head protection in many types of incident and, unlike motorcyclists’ full-face crash helmets (which are stronger and heavier), do not offer any protection to the riders’ neck and spinal cord, face or the sides of the head.
Yep, I now have both a front and rear facing camera, which I use on every journey.
Like wise I have cameras in my car now, after being hit by a stupid cyclist who then tried to blame me, when I was stationary, now tell me how I could be to blame as a non moving vehicle user. Mmmmmm, duh! So now I record law breakers at lights, jumping in front of my car and putting my passengers and myself at risk – flying off the pavements cos they want to use the road, oh I have a catalogue of cyclist madmen, not all in Lycra, but guess what – no women in my sights, all macho men strutting their stuff on a bicycle. And then I use the same cameras when I take my mum around our local roads in her wheelchair, that is equally interesting as we often have to use the roads due to car users parking on the pavement. I have recorded a car following us and I could have reached out behind me and touched its bumper, hassling us off the road but where too, most of the pavements are totally blocked. So come on car users and cyclists – lets all behave and consider each other.
As a commuting cyclist and car driver in Plymouth, we have several areas where cycle lanes are provided at pinch points. Clearly marked and signed cycle lanes are provided at the approach to the pinch point and the cyclist is then diverted onto the footpath which has a marked divide and drop kerbs for cyclists along its entire length.
Guess what, I would say just about every cyclist ignores this and carries on through the pinch point, slowing down traffic, annoying car drivers and putting themselves at extreme risk.
So how about a fine for cyclists using the road where separate lanes are provided?
Personally I support the compulsory registration and insurance of bicycles.
However at the end of the day this is not enforceable in any court unless you have a head cam with a doppler radar to prove the distances beyond reasonable doubt…..
Imagine driving in your car on the motorway and at every junction you had to leave the motorway, drive up onto a footway with pedestrians on, then back on to the motorway. Meanwhile HGVs were allowed straight through on the motorway and you had to rejoin the stream of HGVs.
That’s why most cyclist stick to the road instead of these stupid “pinch point” bypasses. It’s why you’re trained to occupy the lane in primary position so cars can’t squeeze past you.
In that case, cyclists (me included) should be obliged to give way to faster moving vehicles.
Whilst sitting in Pret in Pimlico London I have observed the following in 15 minutes whilst reading this post:
1. 3 cyclists going through red lights
2. 1 cyclist on the pavement
3. 1 cyclist with no helmet
4. 1 bike propped up on Pret taking 3 spaces at a table. Ok no law breaking but pretty anti social!
How many of the following did you see though?:
Motorists playing on their phones
Motorists under the influence of Alcohol
Motorists under the influence of drugs
Motorists speeding
Motorists without Tax/MOT, a valid licence or insurance cover.
Motorists parking on pavements
Motorists not wearing seatbelts
Motorists going through red or amber lights
???
And your point is, Tom??
1. They’re nobbers. Did you not notice any cars jumping reds ? I’d be surprised.
2. Nobbers.
3. Do you drive wearing a helmet ? Stats show that you should. I don’t wear a helmet if I’m pootling.
4. Oh have you SEEN what motorists do with their parking ? Two wheels up on the kerb meaning prams and wheelchairs have to go on the road? forcing blind people onto the road ? Doesn’t excuse the nobber of a cyclist though. BUT ITS PEOPLE. NOT JUST CYCLISTS.
In the road I live, it is four wheels up on the pavements, yes the cars near me do only have four wheels, in keeping with most cars. So yes, what I am saying is the whole vehicle is parked on the pavement completely blocking it. Will the council or anyone else – police / parish council / etc do anything about it – NAH!! So I walk behind my mother in her wheel chair and we make a statement every evening and use the road space, very very slowly on our walk with my lovely dog KOKO who loves to go out with mummy for a nice sniff!!
Oh I should add we have a camera positioned on her wheelchair facing both directions, much like a cyclist – can’t think why!
Fine – But cyclists that ride 2 or 3 abreast especially on narrow lane roads and country roads should be fined as well or even have their bikes crushed for being irresponsible idiots. If we walked down the road three abreast and got run over it would be our fault, but apparently donning glow in the dark Lycra makes you invincible and if you get hurt it can’t possibly be your fault.
If you walked down the road three abreast it wouldn’t be your fault. It’s the fault of the driver who hasn’t adapted their driving to stop or avoid obstacles on the road particularly around bends. Have you read the Highway Code?
Cyclists ride 2 abreast to block you from overtaking dangerously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGRQgw6PDA
Some cyclists almost take over the road cycling in front of drivers. Many roads are adapted to have a cyclist lane – who pays for that – the motorists do! It is only right that cyclists should pay to take their bikes on the road too!
It’s payed out of council tax!
And who pays the council tax? – not everyone, unfortunately.
“cyclist lane – who pays for that – the motorists do!”
No, it comes out of central funding from taxation. As a man, do you also have an issue in funding gynaecology units and in hospitals if you’re never going to use them?
Because of course no cyclist happens to be a car driver as well, are they? I pay my share of fuel duty, VAT, road fund license.
You pay ‘road fund licence’ ?
I’d ask for a refund. You’ve been paying a non-existent tax.
Jeez, those robbing …..s!! Where do I get the form from?
I cycle five days a week to keep fit and there isn’t a day when either someone drives too close or tries to force me off the road.
The street I live on has a give way (due to parking on either side of the road, it funnels it becomes quite narrow and only just wide enough for one vehicle) half way up it and it is seldom a car will give way to me. I recall one time when a car driver shot the give way and nearly killed me (had he hit me and my bike) and as I let out an expletive, he reversed back down the road and shouted You’re only a cyclist.
Before anyone asks, I ride a motorcycle and also drive a car and I always keep well away from cyclists.
Where there are cycle lanes/paths it should be made compulsory to be used thereby separating motorists and cyclists. Perhaps Insurance for cyclists the same as motorists would be a good idea.
Perhaps Insurance for cyclists the same as motorists would be a good idea.
Brilliant idea, then most of us cyclist would abandon the bike and revert to the car, increasing congestion/pollution even further.
And the problem with a lot of cycle lanes is that they are little more than token gestures implemented by local authorities to “tick the box”. A bit of paint down the side of the road? Waste of time.
As a driver I feel cyclists are very often at fault themselves by riding 2 or 3 abreast and refusing to ride single file even on narrow roads with lots of traffic.
Then you’d be wrong. Cyclists are trained to cycle 2 abreast. We do it so it’s quicker and safer for you to overtake.
What about cyclists who refuse to use cycle lanes? Near me there is a long, wide, safe and segregated cycle lane, paid for by me and other council tax payers. Many lycra-clad cyclists seem to think it is beneath them to use it, foolishly choosing to risk their safety and inconvenience motorists by cycling on a busy dual carriageway.
I’m sure there must be SOME cyclists that happen to pay council tax. Segregated cycle lanes can be good, (eh check out Holland), but NOT if they are constantly being crossed by drive ways/side roads at which the cyclist constantly has to slowing down/giving way. In Holland the cyclist gets priority so guess what? MORE CYCLISTS USE THEM!
Indeed Lawrence, most do pay council tax too, which makes it all the more illogical that they don’t use the cycle lane that they paid for.
The cycle lane in question runs through a non-urban area. There are no driveways, pot holes, side roads or any other reasons not to use it. I just don’t understand their mentality.
Hey ho, it’s always easier to penalise the motorist.
I’m dreading the arrival of “Dutch roundabouts” for the priority reasons that you mention.
I don’t know the cycle lane but perhaps it’s the same reason car drivers prefer motorways to B roads.
If I’m cycling in a strange area I might see what looks like a usuful cycle path alongside the road. I’ll get on it only to find that it ends just around the corner or that it ends up with too many drives/side roads, as already mentioned, so I’ll end up back on the road.
My point being here that I know which cycle paths around here are good. When I venture out of my area I don’t. Not all cycle lanes are worth whatever pittance the local authority spent on them. Believe me, I love it when I can use a well thought out, dedicated cycle lane well away from all of the stupid, clueless car drivers, most of whom couldn’t pass a theory test within 5 years of doing it originally.
This comment says it all. Heaven forbid that cyclists have to slow down or give way. Hence the same attitude to red lights I presume
Heaven forbid that car drivers have to slow down and maybe have to hang back a few seconds to get safely past a cyclist! Do you think that only car drivers have somewhere important to be and that all we cyclist are just out for a jolly little tootle around?
Usually most of us are glad of a rest. I love a red light. But a motorist wouldn’t put up with a road that makes you stop every 10 yards. Why should a cyclist ? Our tax pays for the roads too.
Unfortunately very few cycle lanes in this country are well designed, and that is why they are not always used.
Imagine the council built a special lane just for you and your car, expect that when you come to use it you find it is actually shared with pedestrians, pushchairs, kids on scooters and dogs on extending leads. Further more you now have to stop and give way at each and every side turning where previously you had priority. Would you use it?
P.S. I always stop for red lights whether on my bike or in my car.
I’m a lycra clad cyclist. (it’s more comfortable) and if there is a decent path we use them. If it’s covered in gravel or means you have to give way at every side road then it’s not going to get used.
None of my cycling pals enjoy riding on busy dual carriageways. We’ve had friends killed. There will be a reason for the bike path not being used.
Oh good example by me. Industrial estate that a well used bike path comes out in. Mostly we ride through early mornings at the weekend and all is quiet. Someone has built a path along the pavement that goes across all of the factories entrances and exits. So if you want to get squished then thats an excellent start.
They’ve also not put in any dropped kerbs – so if you’re new then you’re quite likely to get a shock when you reach the end. If its dark you might come off.
A good bike path will be used. That path you’re talking about can’t be good.
Whereabouts is it ?
It’s Ively Road, Farnborough between Norris Hill Road and Kennels Lane. Pardon my mistake, it’s not a dual carriageway. Go the length of it on Street View and you will see what I mean.
As a cyclist and car driver I feel that too many car drivers consider cyclists a ******* nuisance ,I on many occasions have been within a cat’s whisker of being hit by drivers who seem incapable of taking their right foot of the accelerator and had it not been for my quick reations I would have become just another statistic .Now I not suggesting all cyclists are without blame,far from it ,!I have often been behind cyclists riding two or three abreast chatting and wobbling all over the place and who couldn’t give a damn about their inconsiderate behaviour.When I’m out and about on my bike I always stop or pull over to let motorists pass (most of the roads I use are narrow country lanes) most “hammer past” without bothering to thank me,and a tiny few acknowledge me with either a toot,a wave of the hand or flashing their hazard warning lights.I know some cyclists will hog a narrow lane and make you stay behind them for miles when they could easily have pulled over or stopped, it’s those cyclists who are like a lot of drivers ,just pig ignorant.
What is needed is courtesy,common sense and a bit of give and take on both sides,I know easier said than done………….
The law in Spain where they do a lot of cycling as clubs, it is a minimum of a metre as all you that hire cars knows, this is good at 20 mph and above but it is a bit awkward in town where there is a steady stream of oncoming traffic and in slow traffic as the bike is wobbling all over the place. Here in the UK I leave as much room as I can, not overtaking just before a bollard, something parked in the road or a left turn but 1.5 metres is 5ft in old money is a bit much especially when they ride 2 abreast which means on some roads you can’t overtake without breaking the law.
Tell you what then Geoff, you ride a bike along a road and I’ll come past you at 1mt doing 50mph and you can tell me what it feels like. And be careful not to wobble or serve as I come past.
It’s 1.5m in Spain. If you can’t overtake safely, don’t break the law. Wait until it’s safe.
It’s not just motor vehicle drivers who should brush up on the highway code. I have lost count of the amount of cyclists I have seem flouting road laws. Running red lights is just one.
I ride motorcycle drive a car and an HGV. Cyclists should have compulsory training and be licenced so they’re traceable. Too many think they’re invicible and own tbe road. Riding two or more abreast or in groups makes it extremely difficult to pass on a 2 lane A road and worse in a loaded HGV. Even slow farm vehicles are supposed to pull over to prevent traffic build-up but some cy lists seem to take delight in thus situation.
I’ll be very surprised if a police officer is within shouting distance of any cyclist. Especially as there is a big shortage of them.
The politicians make these new laws, but there’s no one to police them. It’s laughable.
The thing is Roy, that a lot of cyclists have cameras on their bikes because they’re annoyed at every other bike ride having a near death experience.
The police have a website that we can upload the camera footage to – and voila – its processed and the fine can be issued. I’m sure it’s all backroom staff and they can knock out 100s of these in a day.
Give cyclists space.
Oh please give me the website, as have lots of footage of cyclist breaking the laws, running red lights, etc, I can see if the same courtesy is applied to them, will they be fined for putting the motorists life at risk, running a red light and putting themselves in the way of a car.
I am guessing someone jumping in front of a train deliberately does not cause a train driver to lose his licence so if a cyclist is jumping a red light a driver cannot be blamed for hitting them, is that right?
I thought riding on the pavement was still against the law. I also see youngsters riding no hands talking on mobiles with earphones in both ears, doing wheelies, weaving dangerously in & out of traffic overtaking slow moving traffic on the inside (adults too). However I have experienced cyclists who do obey the rules and have respect for other road users however it is regrettable that the few tarnish the many. The trouble is that nothing seems to be done about it, the police tend to look the other way as the law is unenforceable on certain ages.
There ought to make the single carriageway roads 10ft wider to accommodate cyclists but that would mean no pavements for pedestrians. Wide sweeping laws like this help no one
Helps cyclists though 😉
In that video, the rear cyclist moves out to be beside his colleague without looking. That was not directly the fault of the motorist who was, at that point, too close to do avoid the accident.
Whilst I accept that some drivers do leave very little room when overtaking, as in the secon incident in the video, that first incident is not a good illustration of the point.
The court found the driver directly at fault. Driving way too close to the cyclists who do need to move around on the road to avoid potholes and grids.
Unfortunately it is the motorist (that’s the people who actually pay to use the roads) who are being penalised for the poor behaviour of the great unwashed/unlicensed cyclists.
Even when a cyclist has its own dedicated cycle lane, they don’t use it, pulling out with indication into the path of other vehicles. Then when they injure themselves in this fashion they try and blame the motorist. It’s time for cyclist to be registered and regulated by appropriate legislation
Motorists don’t pay to use the roads, they pay a tax based on the emissions of their cars and on the insurance cover for when they ultimately injure/kill another road user. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
I resent being described as “unwashed” just because I am a cyclist. I had a shower just like week, thank you very much! And what is wrong with “pulling out with indication into the path of other vehicles? Would you rather I didn’t indicate? Mind you, I have to admit that swerving out in front of cars in order to get hit is a great way to get my back upgraded on the drivers insurance. It’s always nice to come out of hospital to a nice, shiney new bike!
Pity you can’t edit these posts. I did mean get my BIKE upgraded, not my back!!
1.5m is not enough in many circumstances, it should be at least 2m and they should stress that on a normal road you should drive completely on the wrong side of the road, over the white line to overtake a bike or car. Filtering, driving in the same lane as another vehicle, is not legal for cars, vans & lorries although , it is legal for cycles & motorcycles to filter in slow moving traffic. They also need a Highway code rule that on narrow roads (single track or similarly narrow) a car, van or lorry must always stop when it meets an oncoming cycle and the cycle should always pass the car, the car should never pass the cycle unless the cyclist has pulled in to the side of the road (or off the road) and stopped.
More cyclists are killed on country roads than by lorries/buses in town and it’s almost invariably caused by motor vehicles squeezing by cyclists whether overtaking or meeting them as oncoming traffic.
Most drivers are not properly aware of the extent of their vehicle and none are aware of the extent of the vehicle when you include the wake (air disruption) it generates because that varies with speed and external wind conditions.
Overtaking cyclists also needs to be introduced as part of the driving test, at the moment it is possible to pass a driving test without ever having overtaken a moving vehicle, much less a bike, this explains why standards of overtaking are so poor, not just when overtaking cycles but other motor vehicles as well,
Many drivers who kill cyclists get penalty points and community service, even for a second offence, it is simply not true that Alliston got a lighter sentence than a driver would get and there are existing laws which cover dangerous cycling but they did not incur the penalty that the CPS decided they wanted though the sentence he was given turned out to be less than they were targetting anyhow.
A £100 fine and 3 penalty points applied to driving too close to a cyclist though is ridiculous for deliberately driving in a manner likely to cause the death of another road user. In many cases driver deliberately drive close to cyclists because they’re overtaking whee they cannot see far enough ahead on the road and intend to pull back in (and kill the cyclist) if they meet oncoming traffic, this should merit a mandatory prison sentence
Bob, I had to read your post twice to make sure I’d read it correctly. It’s one of the few posts that hasn’t had me shaking my head in disbelief at the ignorance/hysteria displayed by all of the car drivers on here.
Agree totally with what you say. This is about passing cyclists safely but people are using it to highlight every little gripe they have with cyclists.
I regularly have to ride along a B road to my local town. It has 2 lanes and a grass verge. I reguarly get past by cars that must be doing 45/50+ within 4-5ft. And that’s even when there is no oncoming traffic and they could be well over.
I have had a passenger door mirror hit my handlebars with such force that it knocked the mirror clean off. I was going up hill so only moving slowly, meaning that when my bars were knocked through 90 degs I simply fell over, (I actually slid down the side of the car as it happens.) Good job I hadn’t had my hand on the bar ends though as that might have hurt.
Safe riding, (assuming your a cyclist,)
LG.
And what happens when a cyclist rides in the centre of the lans as they almost ALWAYS do? How about when they ride side by side? WHEN are cyclists going to have to have their bikes road legal? WHEN are they going to be fined for going through red lights? It’s all very well cyclists setting the rules, but if you are going to allow these idiots to do so, you CANNOT them exempt them from the rules! NO EXCUSE you need a licence to ride a bike! And you need to pay taxes to ride on the roads – because THEY want cycle lanes, so THEY can pay dor them & the upkeep!
I think your CAPS LOCK key is broken m8. You also have a hyperbole problem.
With cyclists not even having to take a Highway Code Test or cycling proficiency test, and having to pay no tax or insurance, it shows just how mentally deranged so called Government is spending increasingly large amounts of money to give psyclists everything they want – half the road and pavements, and even that isn’t enough for the lawless community of cyclists. I have to stop at the gate before leaving the house to check for illegal sociopaths on bicycles shooting past on the pavement.
Do you think that in Holland cyclists have to take a test, pay road tax and insurance? I wonder how on earth they manage out there without all of the stupid, open hostility you have in this back ward country, considering that they have thousands more cyclists than we do here.
And what about idiot cyclists who have a disregard for, red lights,, zebra crossings,, riding on pavements, and going the wrong way on one way streets, not forgetting up alongside lorries, buses blind side at traffic lights etc ,, as normal its the motorist who is blamed for the lycra menace fools…