Cyclists, new Highway Code rules

[Moleman]

Just now, Phil xxkr said:

Around the neck you mean? 😁

Now now, be nice. 🧐

[Moleman]

5 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Around the neck you mean? 😁

You may suggest that but I never said that. 🥳

[Phil xxkr]

Just now, Moleman said:

You may suggest that but I never said that. 🥳

Scaredy cat 🙊🙈🙉

[doog442]

14 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Around the neck you mean? 😁

For the benefit of the forum I don't cycle in a group. At the moment all I'm doing is pootling down the shop on the odd occasion on a 40 year old Raleigh. When I  do head out on my road bike please say hello. 

[Moleman]

11 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Scaredy cat 🙊🙈🙉

What have I left to be scared of? I have already felt the wrath of (Khan) Doog. Is there something worse?

I could I suppose be forced to cycle everywhere - hell. 😨 

[Moleman]

Just now, doog442 said:

For the benefit of the forum I don't cycle in a group. At the moment all I'm doing is pootling down the shop on the odd occasion on a 40 year old Raleigh. When I  do head out on my road bike please say hello. 

Brilliant Doog.

[Mincey]

4 minutes ago, doog442 said:

For the benefit of the forum I don't cycle in a group. At the moment all I'm doing is pootling down the shop on the odd occasion on a 40 year old Raleigh. When I  do head out on my road bike please say hello. 

 

Ian Paisley was seen in the middle of Belfast town centre holding a bike above his head. A chap asked him what he was doing. "I'm holding a Rally" he replied.

(c) Frank Carson, TISWAS, sometime in the Seventies.

[Moleman]

7 minutes ago, Moleman said:

I could I suppose be forced to cycle everywhere - hell. 😨 

And Linas.P could be coming up behind me!!! 😨😨

[Linas.P]

13 minutes ago, Moleman said:

And Linas.P could be coming up behind me!!! 😨😨

You wouldn't even have a time to realise mate! 

[Linas.P]

Some commentary from legal expert, although just his opinion as there isn't much in terms of the law that changes. I would note he is very very pro-cyclist (cycling himself from what I have seen) and very very reserved when it comes to motorists, and although from time to time I watch his commentary on legal question, I have few times disliked his video for being overly negative to drivers and sort of making hard line of some basic motoring offences. However - even he think that these rules will cause more confusion than help:

 

[Moleman]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Some commentary from legal expert, although just his opinion as there isn't much in terms of the law that changes. I would note he is very very pro-cyclist (cycling himself from what I have seen) and very very reserved when it comes to motorists, and although from time to time I watch his commentary on legal question, I have few times disliked his video for being overly negative to drivers and sort of making hard line of some basic motoring offences. However - even he think that these rules will cause more confusion than help:

 

Interesting video, makes the same comments many of us have made already. The most important point I think was that none of this takes away the need to be responsible to others and for others. Just because you have the right does not make your behaviour or actions right. Perhaps we can all agree on that.

[First_Lexus]

24 minutes ago, Moleman said:

Just because you have the right does not make your behaviour or actions right. Perhaps we can all agree on that.

Absolutely. Any time I hear somebody say they’re ‘entitled’ to something it rings alarm bells. People should do something because it’s sensible or right, not just because they can.

From my perspective, and as I’ve said before, these debates don’t really represent the situation ‘on the ground.’ Bad behaviour from either side is pretty limited (in my experience anyway). Reading some threads and media opinion pieces you’d think that the roads had ground to a halt because of cyclists, and that isn’t the case at all.

Government bears some responsibility for the furore over these new requirements as there hasn’t been much of an awareness campaign and there should have been. One is planned for February, but the stable door is open and banging In the wind! The lack of a clear advertising campaign has left a vacuum for scaremongering.

I’d hope that no car driver would ever want to cause injury to another human being through their actions. Is waiting for a couple of minutes in order to overtake safely really such a big deal in the grand scheme of things? I’m reminded of a Post Office survey completed back in the day, asking people how long they’d been queuing for. Most estimated 8-10 minutes at busy times, but the reality was actually 2-3 minutes (from memory). I think waiting to pass a cyclist, or any slow moving vehicle, is likely to fall into the same situation - perception vs reality.

Equally, I’d like to think (and we know) that 90% of cyclists don’t want to cause inconvenience to anybody. I can’t ride a bicycle because of my disability so I have no first hand knowledge, but I’d wager none of them want to put themselves in danger because of the way they ride. Why would they? 

Militancy and entitlement from a minority generally makes a lot of noise but doesn’t imho represent the majority view or approach.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, First_Lexus said:

Absolutely. Any time I hear somebody say they’re ‘entitled’ to something it rings alarm bells. People should do something because it’s sensible or right, not just because they can.

From my perspective, and as I’ve said before, these debates don’t really represent the situation ‘on the ground.’ Bad behaviour from either side is pretty limited (in my experience anyway). Reading some threads and media opinion pieces you’d think that the roads had ground to a halt because of cyclists, and that isn’t the case at all.

Government bears some responsibility for the furore over these new requirements as there hasn’t been much of an awareness campaign and there should have been. One is planned for February, but the stable door is open and banging In the wind! The lack of a clear advertising campaign has left a vacuum for scaremongering.

I’d hope that no car driver would ever want to cause injury to another human being through their actions. Is waiting for a couple of minutes in order to overtake safely really such a big deal in the grand scheme of things? I’m reminded of a Post Office survey completed back in the day, asking people how long they’d been queuing for. Most estimated 8-10 minutes at busy times, but the reality was actually 2-3 minutes (from memory). I think waiting to pass a cyclist, or any slow moving vehicle, is likely to fall into the same situation - perception vs reality.

Equally, I’d like to think (and we know) that 90% of cyclists don’t want to cause inconvenience to anybody. I can’t ride a bicycle because of my disability so I have no first hand knowledge, but I’d wager none of them want to put themselves in danger because of the way they ride. Why would they? 

Militancy and entitlement from a minority generally makes a lot of noise but doesn’t imho represent the majority view or approach.

In such case why create "hierarchy" and imply that in cases of both new/updated rules pedestrians and cyclists would do something that would endanger them. The rules already said that if pedestrian started to cross they had a right, that was sufficient and worked well. Sure there were drivers trying to push pedestrians of the roads and there were pedestrians who stepped into the road without looking, but overall it worked. Current rules just sounds - "you have a right, go ahead and try and see how it ends, remember if car crashes into you then it was their fault". I was surprised they didn't say that you have to repeat "I was right all along" all the time whilst lying and waiting for ambulance.

The situation on the ground is that pedestrians already don't care and in more urbanised setting (or may it be just London) they seems like they have death wish. And I don't mean few... I mean majority, you may have different experience and different opinion, but this is my experience and my opinion. I think pandemic as well had a play, working from home, walking locally, there were less cars and people just forgot about common sense. And I didn't have working car since September, so as you can imagine I am walking much more... and I just look at what other pedestrians do and thing - "are you * serious!?" They just step in front of the car through the red and most importantly car stops! And I stand there on the pavement like idiot and car is still waiting for me to cross as well!

Car drivers are not angels, sometimes they do no slow down, or slow down and beep and they do all sorts of mistakes, but again opposite to the other groups - they mostly follow the rules. Probably most annoying for me is not indicating and that is any time ever where I ever get in trouble, I see the car and just assume car goes straight and it turns into me. Most of the time it's nothing, they just slow down, but few times they beeped and showed some gestures and were shown gestures back... but key is indicator here, would they have indicated I would have known they turning and nothing would have happened. But that happens ... maybe once or twice in a year. Pedestrians literally trying to kill themselves happens every single day, every time I walk to the shop and at every crossing. 

As for awareness campaign - I have a theory. Apparently, yougov did survey and only 30% of the drivers knew about the changes... so I guess that translates to 0.01% of pedestrians. This "hysteric" on news is basically awareness campaign - because if they say "few small updates to the rules are coming" everyone will ignore it. When they blow it out of proportion that "motoring ends as we know it", then more people become aware of it, some get enraged and as far as they care - any publicity better than none, regardless positive or negative.

I agree that no driver wants to hurt pedestrian, and if not for pedestrian, then at very least for their car... scraping stuff of your car is not fun, and now you may even have to wait until after you get out of jail to do it. So it is double not cool, because it will be dried on by then (I am joking alright?!). However you premise - "waiting is not that bad" is just poor argument. If there is waiting there is issue, no matter if it is 2 seconds or 2 hours, perception does not matter, what matters is that there is something holding you up on the road and it shouldn't be. If the roads are well designed and the rules are correct, there simply should be nothing holding you up. So what we should look at is not how long it takes, but why it happened and how to make it not happen again. I personally have never held-up another road user knowingly a second longer than I absolutely have to. If I am overtaking then I will move over as soon as possible, or I will accelerate to match the following car speed before it has to slow down for me, and I will slow down after moving over. If I am cycling, I move to let the cars pass right away... I never cycle for 2 entire minutes with car behind me, this is just ridiculous suggestion that such thing would be acceptable... I mean in my case that could be 5-10 seconds maybe, but most of the time I have quit good perception, so I move over before car even needs to slow down... (and yes I do cycle). And as a pedestrian I already said - I stay further from the kerb to wait for the gap in traffic, so that even the most cautious drivers won't stop for me and only then cross after looking for cars and making sure that I won't delay anyone. Sure it does happen that there is simply no gap in traffic, in such case I press the button or walk right-up to the crossing and wait for car to stop for me, raise the hand to thank and quickly pass, not running, but the quickest possible walking pace without jogging. And I expect the same in return from all road users. I give them benefit of doubt, perhaps they haven't seen me - so say depending on situation 15-30s... after that they starting to ***** me off. Let's say I just hate inefficiency and the purpose of roads and HC for me is about efficiency... it is not walk in the park and it is not a leisurely drive, it is system with rules you have to follow and that is the only way it stays working.

Finally, yes I agree that 90% of cyclists don't want to cause inconvenience... what about those 10% who literally come out in the morning with single goal on their mind to cause inconvenience. What we do about them, what can be done about them, because all they do falls into advisory part of HC, they can't be prosecuted, they can't be fined, they can't even be found... and there is nothing we can do about them. Car drivers behaving badly... we can, there are rules, we know VRN, we can report them... with cyclist we can't. There is portion of rules, which can be abused and because it is guidance we can't do anything about it. Cyclist can literally cycle in the middle of the road in front of you for miles and not move over and you can't do anything about it. How long will they delay me... maybe 2min, maybe 5min.. 8...15... doesn't matter why they can delay me at all, why not define it like it is defined for motorist you MUST or MUST NOT... "you MUST stop at fist safe location to let the traffic pass, you MUST NOT delay traffic unnecessarily and for longer than 1 minute" how about that?" I am sure 90% of cyclists already does that, like 99% of drivers don't drive through the red, but we still need a rule to deal with that 1% who do. Same we need a rule to deal with that 10% of cyclist who do.

And if you say I feel entitled not to be unnecessary delayed - yes I feel like it and I think everyone should do as well. Some delays happens and I and everyone accepts it, but if somebody are deliberately wasting your time and unnecessarily delaying you, I just can't see any argument why this should be acceptable ever.

[doog442]

3 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Absolutely. Any time I hear somebody say they’re ‘entitled’ to something it rings alarm bells. People should do something because it’s sensible or right, not just because they can.

From my perspective, and as I’ve said before, these debates don’t really represent the situation ‘on the ground.’ Bad behaviour from either side is pretty limited (in my experience anyway). Reading some threads and media opinion pieces you’d think that the roads had ground to a halt because of cyclists, and that isn’t the case at all.

Government bears some responsibility for the furore over these new requirements as there hasn’t been much of an awareness campaign and there should have been. One is planned for February, but the stable door is open and banging In the wind! The lack of a clear advertising campaign has left a vacuum for scaremongering.

I’d hope that no car driver would ever want to cause injury to another human being through their actions. Is waiting for a couple of minutes in order to overtake safely really such a big deal in the grand scheme of things? I’m reminded of a Post Office survey completed back in the day, asking people how long they’d been queuing for. Most estimated 8-10 minutes at busy times, but the reality was actually 2-3 minutes (from memory). I think waiting to pass a cyclist, or any slow moving vehicle, is likely to fall into the same situation - perception vs reality.

Equally, I’d like to think (and we know) that 90% of cyclists don’t want to cause inconvenience to anybody. I can’t ride a bicycle because of my disability so I have no first hand knowledge, but I’d wager none of them want to put themselves in danger because of the way they ride. Why would they? 

Militancy and entitlement from a minority generally makes a lot of noise but doesn’t imho represent the majority view or approach.

Great post. 

[mdj8]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

In such case why create "hierarchy" and imply that in cases of both new/updated rules pedestrians and cyclists would do something that would endanger them. The rules already said that if pedestrian started to cross they had a right, that was sufficient and worked well. Sure there were drivers trying to push pedestrians of the roads and there were pedestrians who stepped into the road without looking, but overall it worked. Current rules just sounds - "you have a right, go ahead and try and see how it ends, remember if car crashes into you then it was their fault". I was surprised they didn't say that you have to repeat "I was right all along" all the time whilst lying and waiting for ambulance.

The situation on the ground is that pedestrians already don't care and in more urbanised setting (or may it be just London) they seems like they have death wish. And I don't mean few... I mean majority, you may have different experience and different opinion, but this is my experience and my opinion. I think pandemic as well had a play, working from home, walking locally, there were less cars and people just forgot about common sense. And I didn't have working car since September, so as you can imagine I am walking much more... and I just look at what other pedestrians do and thing - "are you * serious!?" They just step in front of the car through the red and most importantly car stops! And I stand there on the pavement like idiot and car is still waiting for me to cross as well!

Car drivers are not angels, sometimes they do no slow down, or slow down and beep and they do all sorts of mistakes, but again opposite to the other groups - they mostly follow the rules. Probably most annoying for me is not indicating and that is any time ever where I ever get in trouble, I see the car and just assume car goes straight and it turns into me. Most of the time it's nothing, they just slow down, but few times they beeped and showed some gestures and were shown gestures back... but key is indicator here, would they have indicated I would have known they turning and nothing would have happened. But that happens ... maybe once or twice in a year. Pedestrians literally trying to kill themselves happens every single day, every time I walk to the shop and at every crossing. 

As for awareness campaign - I have a theory. Apparently, yougov did survey and only 30% of the drivers knew about the changes... so I guess that translates to 0.01% of pedestrians. This "hysteric" on news is basically awareness campaign - because if they say "few small updates to the rules are coming" everyone will ignore it. When they blow it out of proportion that "motoring ends as we know it", then more people become aware of it, some get enraged and as far as they care - any publicity better than none, regardless positive or negative.

I agree that no driver wants to hurt pedestrian, and if not for pedestrian, then at very least for their car... scraping stuff of your car is not fun, and now you may even have to wait until after you get out of jail to do it. So it is double not cool, because it will be dried on by then (I am joking alright?!). However you premise - "waiting is not that bad" is just poor argument. If there is waiting there is issue, no matter if it is 2 seconds or 2 hours, perception does not matter, what matters is that there is something holding you up on the road and it shouldn't be. If the roads are well designed and the rules are correct, there simply should be nothing holding you up. So what we should look at is not how long it takes, but why it happened and how to make it not happen again. I personally have never held-up another road user knowingly a second longer than I absolutely have to. If I am overtaking then I will move over as soon as possible, or I will accelerate to match the following car speed before it has to slow down for me, and I will slow down after moving over. If I am cycling, I move to let the cars pass right away... I never cycle for 2 entire minutes with car behind me, this is just ridiculous suggestion that such thing would be acceptable... I mean in my case that could be 5-10 seconds maybe, but most of the time I have quit good perception, so I move over before car even needs to slow down... (and yes I do cycle). And as a pedestrian I already said - I stay further from the kerb to wait for the gap in traffic, so that even the most cautious drivers won't stop for me and only then cross after looking for cars and making sure that I won't delay anyone. Sure it does happen that there is simply no gap in traffic, in such case I press the button or walk right-up to the crossing and wait for car to stop for me, raise the hand to thank and quickly pass, not running, but the quickest possible walking pace without jogging. And I expect the same in return from all road users. I give them benefit of doubt, perhaps they haven't seen me - so say depending on situation 15-30s... after that they starting to ***** me off. Let's say I just hate inefficiency and the purpose of roads and HC for me is about efficiency... it is not walk in the park and it is not a leisurely drive, it is system with rules you have to follow and that is the only way it stays working.

Finally, yes I agree that 90% of cyclists don't want to cause inconvenience... what about those 10% who literally come out in the morning with single goal on their mind to cause inconvenience. What we do about them, what can be done about them, because all they do falls into advisory part of HC, they can't be prosecuted, they can't be fined, they can't even be found... and there is nothing we can do about them. Car drivers behaving badly... we can, there are rules, we know VRN, we can report them... with cyclist we can't. There is portion of rules, which can be abused and because it is guidance we can't do anything about it. Cyclist can literally cycle in the middle of the road in front of you for miles and not move over and you can't do anything about it. How long will they delay me... maybe 2min, maybe 5min.. 8...15... doesn't matter why they can delay me at all, why not define it like it is defined for motorist you MUST or MUST NOT... "you MUST stop at fist safe location to let the traffic pass, you MUST NOT delay traffic unnecessarily and for longer than 1 minute" how about that?" I am sure 90% of cyclists already does that, like 99% of drivers don't drive through the red, but we still need a rule to deal with that 1% who do. Same we need a rule to deal with that 10% of cyclist who do.

And if you say I feel entitled not to be unnecessary delayed - yes I feel like it and I think everyone should do as well. Some delays happens and I and everyone accepts it, but if somebody are deliberately wasting your time and unnecessarily delaying you, I just can't see any argument why this should be acceptable ever.

Well argued posts Linus with supporting opinion no less. From your comments I feel you speak for the majority of considerate road users. There really is no need for cyclists to cycle in the middle of the lane "to make yourself as clearly visible as possible" it's a spurious argument and for no gain to anyone just causes problems. Far better to stay on the left and let cars pass by default, unless the road is narrow or you're turning right of course..

[Phil xxkr]

2 minutes ago, mdj8 said:

Well argued posts Linus with supporting opinion no less. From your comments I feel you speak for the majority of considerate road users. There really is no need for cyclists to cycle in the middle of the lane "to make yourself as clearly visible as possible" it's a spurious argument and for no gain to anyone just causes problems. Far better to stay on the left and let cars pass by default, unless the road is narrow or you're turning right of course..

As a society we are moving slowly and surely towards the Lowest Common Denominator as being the determinate in many areas of life,contrary to the natural order of things. In the workplace firms and the public sector are spending (investing) billions to enable us to go faster, accomplish more in less time. Deming Taylor and Gilbreth would be proud. Yet outside of those spaces instead of pursuing similar ideals in all things the intent is to pursue a form of entropy where we all become beige. A strategy to inevitably cause resentment and friction. 

[Linas.P]

There are two perspectives - "why should anyone be entitled not to be delayed" vs. "why should anyone be entitled to delay others", regardless of which question one likes to ask or agrees with. I think we can agree at least that both are the valid. Likewise, in general it would not be hard to agree that "efficiency" is a positive thing and "delay" is negative thing, that is regardless of how first is achieved or what caused the second one.

I am sure people will choose their side, but here is my justification of why I think people should be entitled not to be delayed, instead of being entitled to delay others. This is simply most logical and efficient outcome - if people don't feel entitled to delay others, then they won't and the others then don't need to be entitled to anything, because they are not being delayed, so the issue get's automatically solved. Not delaying each other is just most efficient way to use the common infrastructure. Car following bicycle, or multiple cars stopping for pedestrian are just not efficient.

That is not to say pedestrians and cyclists are not more vulnerable, or that car drivers should not be more responsible to make sure they do as much as they can to protect other users, especially those who are vulnerable. It just means we should not create rules and situations, where more vulnerable is in greater dangers, or relies on anybody else but themselves to be safe. Because what this will cause - is that we all will have to drive way slower than needed, because we will have unnecessary burned of responsibility which is placed wrong and thus we will be delaying each other more and system overall will be less efficient.

In contrary, system will be inherently safer and more efficient if we place responsibility where it belongs and we all as society will benefit for it. That is the reason mentioned by Philip - companies have to be efficient to survive, so they strive to remove inefficiencies and inherent risks, and that is how they become successful. Why can't we as a nation try to be more efficient?

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

There are two perspectives - "why should anyone be entitled not to be delayed" vs. "why should anyone be entitled to delay others", regardless of which question one likes to ask or agrees with. I think we can agree at least that both are the valid. Likewise, in general it would not be hard to agree that "efficiency" is a positive thing and "delay" is negative thing, that is regardless of how first is achieved or what caused the second one.

I am sure people will choose their side, but here is my justification of why I think people should be entitled not to be delayed, instead of being entitled to delay others. This is simply most logical and efficient outcome - if people don't feel entitled to delay others, then they won't and the others then don't need to be entitled to anything, because they are not being delayed, so the issue get's automatically solved. Not delaying each other is just most efficient way to use the common infrastructure. Car following bicycle, or multiple cars stopping for pedestrian are just not efficient.

That is not to say pedestrians and cyclists are not more vulnerable, or that car drivers should not be more responsible to make sure they do as much as they can to protect other users, especially those who are vulnerable. It just means we should not create rules and situations, where more vulnerable is in greater dangers, or relies on anybody else but themselves to be safe. Because what this will cause - is that we all will have to drive way slower than needed, because we will have unnecessary burned of responsibility which is placed wrong and thus we will be delaying each other more and system overall will be less efficient.

In contrary, system will be inherently safer and more efficient if we place responsibility where it belongs and we all as society will benefit for it. That is the reason mentioned by Philip - companies have to be efficient to survive, so they strive to remove inefficiencies and inherent risks, and that is how they become successful. Why can't we as a nation try to be more efficient?

Exactly so Linas 

[Phil xxkr]

On 2/1/2022 at 10:43 AM, Mincey said:

Ian Paisley was seen in the middle of Belfast town centre holding a bike above his head. A chap asked him what he was doing. "I'm holding a Rally" he replied.

(c) Frank Carson, TISWAS, sometime in the Seventies.

Raleigh James, Raleigh 😁

[Mincey]

13 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Raleigh James, Raleigh 😁

I know, I know... I didn't know which one to use for best comedic effect. It seems that I did not choose wisely 😪

[Phil xxkr]

13 minutes ago, Mincey said:

I know, I know... I didn't know which one to use for best comedic effect. It seems that I did not choose wisely 😪

Of course you did! No doubt many will rally to your cause 😎

[doog442]

2 hours ago, mdj8 said:

Well argued posts Linus with supporting opinion no less. From your comments I feel you speak for the majority of considerate road users. There really is no need for cyclists to cycle in the middle of the lane "to make yourself as clearly visible as possible" it's a spurious argument and for no gain to anyone just causes problems. Far better to stay on the left and let cars pass by default, unless the road is narrow or you're turning right of course..

Clearly he doesn't speak for the majority of considerate road users as your national poll sits on 53 signatures. Only 9947 short of even getting a response.

The above is from Cyclecraft. A nationally accredited and universally accepted publication linked with Bikability who replaced the cycling proficiency test and are the UK standard for cycle training . Note Primary position - riding in the centre of the lane improves visibility. It's the best option to deter unsafe passes, particularly in urban areas.

This has been accepted practice for years and this is what cyclists are  taught - where was your petition then ? The new HC adopts this advice as standard with specific emphasis on cyclists moving to secondary (the left) when a faster vehicle approaches or surrounding traffic increases in speed.

 

 

[Malc]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

what about those 10% who literally come out in the morning with single goal on their mind to cause inconvenience. What we do about them, what can be done about them, because all they do falls into advisory part of HC, they can't be prosecuted, they can't be fined, they can't even be found... and there is nothing we can do about them

eeerrrmmm !          run 'em down maybe .............  then there's 0% troublesome cyclists 

I jest ............  or do I 

Malc

[Mr Vlad]

Way hey what a subject. Personally speaking I think these new rules are a waste of time space effort and money spent. I'm a professional truck driver and I see a helluva lot of D head car steerers (note I don't call them drivers) who don't give a toss, of a coin, about Any road user. I also see a helluva lot of cyclists who ride like they've got a death wish. 

I deliver a lot in Wales and go on just wider than single track roads. If I see a jogger or walker or cyclist on such roads I pull over and stop if they're approaching me. If I approach them I give a quick toot of my horn and they see me and they do actually pull in and I pass them slowly. 

One case makes me giggle still. One cyclists group were out on their jollies going  up a steady hill on a narrow road. I saw them ahead and pipped my horn to let them know I was there. They all turned round to acknowledge me except the cyclist at the rear of the bunch who geared down and overtook the group. They all chastised her I could see. Where they could they went into a single line and let me pass. I waved in thanks and they reciprocated.

Coming home just today. Driving up the road and a see a young mum with a child waiting to cross. As typically normal all the cars Ignored her. I stopped and stayed still till a last car went through and she crossed thanking me with a wave.

These rule changes are simply going to be ignored by most. Drivers and cyclists. However I can see pedestrians taking the wee wee by only pretending to cross the road. Oh yes there's gonna be some compensation claims arising from this.

At the end of the day and as already stated. We ALL have a duty of care when we're out on the road. No one is above the other. Some are much more vulnerable than others. We have to look out for each other just like a decent percentage of road users do. Simple. 

[mdj8]

2 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Clearly he doesn't speak for the majority of considerate road users as your national poll sits on 53 signatures. Only 9947 short of even getting a response.

The above is from Cyclecraft. A nationally accredited and universally accepted publication linked with Bikability who replaced the cycling proficiency test and are the UK standard for cycle training . Note Primary position - riding in the centre of the lane improves visibility. It's the best option to deter unsafe passes, particularly in urban areas.

This has been accepted practice for years and this is what cyclists are  taught - where was your petition then ? The new HC adopts this advice as standard with specific emphasis on cyclists moving to secondary (the left) when a faster vehicle approaches or surrounding traffic increases in speed.

 

 

Really, you don't understand do you. Linas and others have explained, very carefully and with examples that the new wording entitles cyclists and pedestrians. When you do that you create problems, problems that did not exist before. This change entitles cyclists or pedestrians to be right whilst inconveniencing drivers and putting the cyclists and pedestrians at risk of being hurt. Linas even provided a video. I don't care for cyclecraft, it's clearly been influenced by lycra wearers and did not accord with the highway code pre last weekend. You keep arguing semantics, adding items that are not in contention and just being obtuse. Whilst doing this may be entertaining for you it's just a reminder to everyone else of the reasons behind the sad state this country has found itself in. As both Linus and Phil say why not look at ways to make things better or more efficient rather than seeking resentment and friction.