mdj8

22 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Too true! Happiness should not be your goal but instead, contentment. This comes about  not by getting what you want but wanting what you already have, and more importantly remembering why you wanted it in the first place. 😎

 

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

3 hours ago, ganzoom said:

This article sums up well these threads:)

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists

I'm clearly in the minority but I simply cannot understand why anyone would choose a car to do an urban commute versus the bike.

I get to work QUICKER on my bike than the car, no worries about parKing, virtually no fuel costs, and it's a cardio work out (so no need to go to the gym). 

I'm about to head off to swimming with my daughter (730am start!). I'll cover more miles in the next hr in the car than a whole week on commuting on the bike, so am no anti car fanatic.

However for the weekday city commute, why do most people refuse to consider using anything else but their cars?? I just don't get it??

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.

5 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

I guess it fully depends on the situation but it could be safety related. Drive your bike close to the pavement so cars can overtake you without too much fuss. This can be scary as some motorists are almost touching you without realizing. If you drive more to the middle of the lane overtaking is impossible so you are safer?

My Motorcycle instructor told me exactly 43 years ago" defend your lane, drive in the middle! "

 

just a thought...

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

5 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

I watch Hubnut on YouTube, finding him both entertaining and eccentric.

He has recorded a short video about the changes. Members may find it useful and interesting or of course they may not…but I’ll leave it here for anybody who wants to watch.

 

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.

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.

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..

32 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Why would a cyclist unnecessarily impede others if there's no traffic behind ?  Who is being impeded here. The rule appears simple, move over if its safe. Are you suggesting cyclist should just move over anyway despite the safety aspect. 

It's the cyclists decision to determine if they think its safe for them to progress not yours. How can you be in a position to determine what's safe or not when following behind.

The Dutch Reach is taught to new drivers in the Netherlands. Its not about mobility or the lack of it its about thinking about cyclists and taking the effort to look behind. 

Your petition is ill advised. If you can't explain your issue in 300 words then what's the point, it's full of holes and totally reactionary. 

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.

21 minutes ago, doog442 said:

I don't agree and I won't sign it Matthew.   

In your petition you have ignored large parts of S72 in your attempt to get cyclists to move out of your way - are you really that entitled ? 

Namely

•  if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
•  when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake
• When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads.

I'm seeing a pattern here which is MOVE OVER TO THE LEFT and OVERTAKE. 

Why should a cyclist stick to the left of a lane and in the door zone when nothing is behind them ? Surely they have more chance of being seen by oncoming traffic or traffic pulling out of junctions ahead if they are more visible and in the centre of a lane.

As you're clearly on a learning curve research Door Zone and the Dutch Reach.

 

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.