I was driving along yesterday when I caught up with two cyclists riding two abreast, the road had double white lines down the centre and there was not enough room for me to pass without crossing the white lines, so I didn't. I thought they didn't realise I was there so I gave a polite toot, but they stayed two abreast and waved me past, I followed them for about a mile with traffic building up behind me. Highway code rule 129 states that to cross double whites in order to pass cyclists, they must be doing 10 mph or less, those boys were doing 15 mph and no wonder car and truck drivers dislike cyclists. Don't mention tractor drivers to me, they are nearly always on the phone. I should report them really but I can't stand busybodies and I'm not one.
I have some sympathy with you Harry, as a driver I would also get a bit frustrated and as a cyclist I wouldn't condone cycling two a breast in this case. However, they are entitled to ride two a breast and have just as much right to the road as a driver. Same with a horse or anything else on the road - it might be inconvenient but that's life. It might also be the case that you'd need to cross the double white line if there was only one cyclist (giving the recommended 1.5m distance between you and said cyclist) so the fact they were riding two a breast might not be relevant. If they were more than 2, say a group of 8, its often easier to pass if they're two a breast than riding single file.
Annoying bar stewards they are and often deliberately hold you up in the case of double whites it is safer for them 2 a breast. As for horses and tractors you are allowed to cross double white lines to overtake them, I feel this law should be for bikes As well after all tractors are often faster than cyclists. As for having a right to the road this is true, but as slower moving veichles/horses they have a duty to move out of the way when safe to do so, holding up the flow of traffic is an offence.
As a motorist and a cyclist, and living on the rural edge of London, I experience the best and worst of all types of road users. What REALLY ****** me off is seeing cyclists with no Hi-Vis clothing on. This should be compulsory in my opinion. I will wave motorists pass when when I can see it's safe for them.... after all, I'm safer if they are in from of me going away from me, rather then when they are behind me, coming toward me and getting frustrated! Regards, Cando
Really? A duty? Is that your opinion or based on some rule in the highway code? How is a slow moving cyclist supposed to move out of the way? Sounds like nonsense to me.
The only time I do this is when riding along a narrow single track lane where its impossible for a car to pass unless I pull in...I'll look out for a wide bit or passing place, slow down and wave them past in the hope they pass me before it narrows again. Just seems like common courtesy to me. Otherwise they can bl**dy well wait!
I disagree, leave helmet wearing to the cyclist. I think people should wear a helmet and definitely encourage it, but wouldn't make it a legal requirement. There is some evidence to show that drivers treat cyclists with and without a helmet differently e.g. they will pass a cyclist wearing a helmet closer than if they're not wearing one.
I haven't done the maths on this so not sure if it would work but in principle...... All cyclists over the age of 16 should be registered. They should wear a high vis vest with their registration number clearly displayed at all times - it being an offence not to. Violation of highway code would be punishable with fines. The registration would cost a one off fee of say £150 which would cover administration costs and an element of policing. I'm a motorist and I have to pay to be. Offences can be tracked down because I have a licence and because I drive a vehicle with clearly displayed registering details. I'm an occasional cyclist for free and I can get away with doing petty much whatever I want to and then use my edited go-pro footage to shame motorists on YouTube who later have a pop at me for running that red light back there or going the wrong way up a one way street etc etc. If I were wearing my registration vest...... Thoughts? PS. I don't think this is in any of the manifestos so I may be going out on a limb here.
I think adults are more at risk than children from an injury if they're not wearing a helmet as an adult's skull is completely rigid whereas a child's isn't completely formed so is able to provide a degree of cushioning. Can't remember where I've heard that and like a lot of my postings it may be total b*ll*cks. I always wear a helmet when cycling though.
What problem is this solution trying to address? I though violation of highway code is already punishable, its just about enforcing it. Motorists have to pass a test and be insured because they might cause harm to others, bad cyclists might be a menace but they are not going to harm others (by and large); the threat comes principally from motorists. And this "solution" would have to be applied to all those using the streets; horse riders for one. And what about pedestrians walking on the road...what does this lunacy end?
Agreed, but many if not most cyclists are unidentifiable so they have to be apprehended in the act. A lot of motoring offences are now being dealt with based on video and photographic evidence which cyclists avoid. Frankly I don't think I've ever seen a horse rider run a red light (when riding a horse at least). Cyclists on the other hand....
Agree, but there is a difference between a motorist and cyclist running a red light, although both are wrong. A cyclist runs a red light, its annoying and cyclist puts himself in danger A motorist runs a red light can causes a danger to others. Its about the level of risk involved - I just don't see the benefit of more laws and expense to bring rogue cyclists to heel when the risk they pose to others simply does not warrant it.
That's a good point and I concur completely. I think what frustrates me more is that despite breaking the law, a cyclist that runs a red light is virtually guaranteed to avoid prosecution. On that basis, which laws can we ignore because the 'risk' to someone else is minimal? For example seat belt wearing?
I think seat belt wearing is good one...by not wearing one, you're endangering only yourself so I'd let you do it.
Lets see two actual terrorist incidents in two weeks let alone the ones that don't hit the media, on the same weekend several teenagers were stabbed in central London one fatally. Yep what we really want is more enforcement of people causing a minor delay to someone driving down the road
Everyone Willy, I'd let people do what they like as long as they're not impacting on others. Drug taking is also up that alley.
Although with pretty much everything there is some level of impact on others...social, cost etc so not clear cut.
Forums
Facebook
Twitter
You Tube
Instagram
Shop