mdj8

Thats pretty deep for a Lexus forum, but very true. How often do we achieve what we never thought possible and then when we do just accept it and re-focus on the next goal. As you say it's important to reflect on why those goals existed which invariably have to do with being content and or helping others (say your children) towards being content. The subtleties of the U.K. culture (as opposed to the U.S. where gloating is acceptible or Asia where money is worshipped no matter how you acquired it) helps balance and ground this so that you never admit to being content and certainly never boast or gloat about it. People tend to see through youtube "influencers" who take pictures draped across other peoples cars or whilst on other peoples boats. If at the end of the day pedalling a bike is what makes you happy - go for it. Just don't hold others up whilst doing so.

Actually that is not correct. The article starts with broad statements about moral order which could be considered to be tangentally related to my complaints but quickly and mainly focuses on “free rider” theory, citing and detailing a paper by Fehr and Gachter. As I clearly state “my objection is not that others are "free riding". I actually don't believe they are”. My issue is mutual consideration. Anyway even though you say human psychology cannot be changed we are all different so that must mean that various traits are present to a greater or lesser degree in all of us. This is also evidenced by the completely irrelevant wealth boast and confirmatory materialistic pictures. No one has done anything similar on the thread so far so I wonder what brought that about. In case you were interested how that appears to me at least, I would think the guy with the medallion would be the sort to do that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rVV7rUv3p4

Thanks it's an interesting article. It doesn't capture the whole rationale though and may well not be the underlying reason for the majority. My circumstances are different to yours. I live inthe countryside and my commute is a 7 mile drive to the station, 40 minute train journey then 10 mins walking, half hour tube then another 10 mins walking. Driving to the station is a necessity especially in inclement weather and here's the first gripe. Unlike the few that do cycle to the station, I would not wish to sit in my sweaty and for some people who use the same shall we say "gym kit" for several days, smelly state in my lycra, next to others on the train that would be affected by it. I find it offensive and move if someone like that sits next to me. For me the basic reason I want cyclists to cycle on the left as far as practically possible, it that they hold me up. I therefore have to give up my time to allow for them. If they made an effort not to hold me up then that would be appreciated. The problem is, many do not, especially when cycling in pairs or more. Why they cant cycle one behind the other to show consideration is beyond me and I believe giving such people the "right" to do so in any circumstance where they travel at a lesser speed than other traffic, say on a road with the national speed limit, goes against common courtesy. Of course where there is no traffic I have no problem, and if on hearing a motorised vehicles approach they moved into single file whether traffic was coming the other way or not everything would be fine but they don't. At the weekend especially it seems my time is usurped by these selfish individuals and they think they have the right to do so. This is wrong. The next thing that I find unacceptable is that modern technology has provided us with cycling lamps that are as bright if not brighter than car headlamps. The trouble is neither the government or for the most case cyclists themselves realise how bright and dazzling they are. They are so bad that when walking in London as a pedestrian in winter I am often dazzled by an approaching bicycle - not cars or buses though. I do not understand why any cyclist that uses a light would not make at least a small effort to point the device down so it doesn't dazzle to the maximum effect or why the government has not stepped in to ensure bicyles use directed lighting. Worst seem to be the pulsing led's. Even used as rear lights they are brighter than a cars fog lamps. Why is it illegal for cars to dazzle others with fog lamps when there is no fog but bicycles can do it any time through ignorance. So you see my objection is not that others are "free riding". I actually don't believe they are. My objection is that those on bicycles often show no consideration for other road users. Zebra crossings? This inconveniences others, makes them late and is dangerous. That is the basis for my issues with cyclists. Cycling on the left in most situations would be an easy fix to the main issue.

Hi Dutchie, I'm a motorcyclist too and interpret "defend your lane" to apply to motorcyclists but not cyclists. On a motorbike you are keeping up with the traffic. Whilst doing so it is important to be seen and not be compromised with other vehicles being too close. For that reason riding in the middle means the driver you are behind can see you in their mirror and the car behind you will stay back as though you are a car. If you ride on the left or even the right you will be in the blind spot of the vehicle ahead and the ones behind can sometimes creep up so they are next to you. That's why you defend your lane and stay in the middle. For a cyclist as motorised vehicles are nearly always overtaking you (at least when outside towns and cities) I feel its just better to stay out of the way and keep to the left without riding in the gutter and whilst avoiding potholes but to the left nontheless. Cheers

Thanks Ed. He basically recounts the rule changes and says if everyone interprets them in the same way and is reasonable towards each other there shouldn't be a problem. I agree there shouldn't but that's not real life. We have a country road near us that has the national speed limit which most people using the road drive at. The road is about 7 miles long and has two parts where you can see for perhaps a quarter mile. The rest consists of curves and bends. If a single cyclist is using the road and keeping to the left he or she can be passed at reduced speed at any point safely for those 7 miles with the exception of two bends. At weekends however cyclists take the road over. Gangs block whole lanes and others, always lycra clad cycle two abreast preventing anyone from overtaking anywhere except the two straight bits. They do this on purpose, there is no need for it and they hold people up for miles. If they were told they must cycle on the left except where it is dangerous or turning right, the problem would be solved. Anyway lets see what Hub Nut thinks after he's experienced the new rules in the real world.

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.

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..

Oh dear. This discussion is a perfect illustration of what will be being played out on the roads as a result of the latest amendments. You assume for example that it's up to the cyclist to determine whether they consider it safe to allow a vehicle to overtake them when being approached from behind, but that is not what the rule says it states "allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so" Where it is safe to do so may differ between cyclist and driver and either can be wrong, it needs clarity. The cyclist may not have the benefit of having taken a driving test either which would make matters worse. As for mobility I'm not sure you know what it means. How many older drivers do you think will be able to open the door from the outside. Not very many I can tell you. Otherwise people use their mirrors as they've always done, and of course you overlooked the responsibility of the cyclist to themselves of looking in the car as they aproach and keeping at least a metre away incase someone carelessly opens their door. In short, you can't say the petition is ill advised, you can say in your opinion it is ill advised but as shown so far you're not really looking at the issue from more than one road users perspective.

Thanks Doog, well plenty of assumptions there. Firstly why is it entitled to suggest that cyclists should not be able to unnecessarily impede others. Why is it necessary for the cyclist to move over, why cant they already be there. I'm seeing a pattern that it is the cyclists determination whether they think its safe that may not concur with the drivers view. This will cause issues. Then the accusation of ignoring parts of S72, you may not know but petitions only allow 300 words so it all cannot be fitted in. Next the door zone - where do I suggest cyclists must ride in the "door zone" I don't. You made that up, as for Dutch reach - well look at the mobility of the majority of our population - what a ridiculous expectation, one that could get cyclists hurt, but remember if you have read the HC they should be at least a metre away from parked cars anyway to avoid your "door zone". Let's watch the cyclist casualty figures to prove or disprove whether the changes are sensible shall we? Unfortunately I fear people will be giving their lives to assert their new "rights" and those people will not be the drivers. Stay safe.

Being born in the 60's taking my cycling proficiency test and cycling around a lot (5 to 15miles regular trips to friends) as a kid from the age of 12, I always thought cyclists were required to cycle on the left to be safe and allow faster traffic to pass unhindered. I'm therefore quite shocked by the recent change that says cyclists should cycle in the middle of their lane to be seen more easily (what nonsense) and move out of the way if a car approaches from behind and it is safe to do so. This just gives the arrogant Mamil (which never existed until around 10 years ago) the right to make things difficult for cars, which some take every opportunity to do. I've therefore started a petition to make things safe again. It's here if you agree and would like to sign it: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/606991 Alternatively if you search the government petitions site it can be found by searching for rule 72. I would have included more changes, but the petition site limits the description to 300 words. Thanks for your consideration. MDJ8

Hi All, just an update to say 5 months on the fix is still working. The car is still being driven on a daily basis and I have had no issues or warning lights since fitting the DOX-0243. Fuel consumption is a steady 21.5 at the moment which I suppose is OK given it's hilly around here and the fact the car is used for the morning and afternoon school run of 20 mile round trip each so much stop/start driving, and the car likely only reaches a decent operating temp after say 5 miles. Hopefully will improve to 23ish when the weather gets warmer. Rgds

If you check, the trouble codes p0136 or p0141 are the only codes relevant to the post cat sensor. So the code description sounds to me like the cat is not functioning properly.

2001 RX 300 with 49000 miles with CEL (check engine light) and VSC suddenly appearing. After wiggling numerous wires, pulling and reseating relays and fuses and finally checking the rubber hose between the airbox and inlet manifold, I invested in a £35- ebay OBD 2 code reader. This said I had P1135 which means the heater element on the oxygen/lambda sensor in the exhaust manifold by the bulkhead was gone. This can be checked by looking for a circuit between the two black wires to the sensor - if there is a circuit the heater elements OK if not its likely burnt out - to check is very difficult and to remove the wiring plug as you cannot get two hands to it, my wife pressed the release catch on the plug from the top of the engine whilst I pulled it out from underneath the car. My heater element didn't show a circuit. Now where to find a replacement part - Inchcape Lexus wanted £205- plus VAT for the correct part number 89467 48011. Thats a lot of money and I couldn't find the part anywhere on the internet using the Lexus part number. After doing some more internet research, I found that on the U.S. lexus forums and parts sites, Denso part No 234-9009 is often mentioned as the replacement for Lexus part 89467-48011 (which is stamped on the part in my car) along with Toyota part 89467-41011 and 89467- 41021, however, again I could not find a reference to Denso part 234-9009 anywhere in the UK or Europe. What I did discover was that Denso part DOX-0243 was cited on some UK parts sites as a replacement for Toyota part 89467-41011 and 89467- 41021. In essence then DOX-0243 seems to be the Euro equivalent of 234-9009. I ordered mine from sparkplugs.co.uk where it cost the most reasonable sum of £63- plus VAT and postage. - Less than a THIRD of the cost from Lexus! I also bought a removal tool which proved invaluable and the customer service was excellent, even to the extent that they checked I was sure it was the correct part and it arrived the very next day. There are plenty of threads showing how to change the sensor on the U.S. Lexus forums. The new Lambda sensor for which the only visible difference I could see was that it had yellow reference tape on the wiring rather than brown, had exactly the same plug and wiring length. It's now been fitted for 3 weeks and the car is in daily use travelling a minimum 20 miles per day. No CEL light and no VSC light any more. If you wish to follow what I did please do so AT YOUR OWN RISK. When I later get the inevitable error code P1155 to say the other manifold sensor by the radiator has gone, I'll be saving another £130- and ordering a Denso DOX-0243. All the best.