View Full Version : Pedal bikes on the road
hongman
01-06-14, 02:34 AM
Now before I start let me say that I'm not one of these people that think I have more right to the road, or anything like that. I'm actually of a neutral opinion on this matter.
However I do not understand why pedal bikes do not require some kind of tax and insurance?
Tax, becuase they use the road, only fair.
Insurance because if in the event a rider causes an accident, the other party has nothing to claim against, but if a car knocks a rider off, different story?
Or have I missed something?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
bobbleheadbarne
01-06-14, 05:59 AM
Insurance good idea... tax no there is cars on the road that are exempt but thats IMO
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
maviczap
01-06-14, 06:03 AM
It's not road tax, it's an emmisson tax, based on how much you vehicle pumps out. Pushbikes don't pump out pollution, so don't pay Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not a road tax.
Can't remember why insurance isn't required, but as cycling is promoted as being healthy to do, forcing cyclists to pay insurance would put people off riding bikes and back into their cars, with the net effect of increasing pollution, traffic gridlock, and more and more overweight and unhealthy people.
Where do you start with insurance, with the kids? This country has an obesity timebomb waiting to go off and the NHS is going to have it's work cut out dealing with it.
Some cyclists do have insurance but only as a side benefit. Considering how much some bikes cost, you can get theft insurance specifically for it which also has the added benefit of 3rd party cover, in case you hit someone etc.
Taxing them doesn't make sense, aside from it being VED and not road tax, cycles don't have much of an impact on the actual roads themselves. The wear and tear is all on the bike.
Yes drivers may get annoyed by them but that is their fault.
Having commuted from my place to work on a push bike, car and motorbike I can see the issues from both sides.
My only gripe as a road user to cyclists is the people who can't plan ahead (although this applies to cars and motorbikes too). Or who take up too much space.
If you are approaching lights or a roundabout, get in to a suitable gear so that if you have to stop, you don't spend 5 mins trying to move off in the wrong gear and going round like a snail causing undue delays and putting the self and others at risk.
If you are riding down the road and need 1 metre between you and the kerb for safety, you shouldn't be on a bicycle. A foot should do it.
EssexDave
01-06-14, 08:27 AM
Every competitive cyclist, in order to race, has to join British Cycling and gets third party insurance as standard.
I joined just because for £11 a year or whatever it is, insurance is pretty handy.
A lot of house insurance policies will include some element of 'public liability' and has been known to work for cycling accidents (although only on occasion).
The number of accidents caused by cyclists that require insurance are just too low compared to the amount of people it would deter. You've got the other problem of enforcement. With cars it's relatively easy, you have a database that the police can check - but how would you do it with bikes?
I can understand where you're coming from, and in my opinion, for serious cyclists third party insurance should be taken out.
However, out of 'my group' that cycle, in the last 3 years we've probably covered over 30,000 miles and I've not known anybody to have had/caused an accident that has affected anybody else.
tactcom7
01-06-14, 09:02 AM
If you are riding down the road and need 1 metre between you and the kerb for safety, you shouldn't be on a bicycle. A foot should do it.
Surely you need more than a foot to get out past all the grates, potholes, dead badgers etc? I think 1 metre is acceptable whereas 1 foot is pushing it.
EssexDave
01-06-14, 11:08 AM
Surely you need more than a foot to get out past all the grates, potholes, dead badgers etc? I think 1 metre is acceptable whereas 1 foot is pushing it.
One of those things that just depends on the circumstances.
Where I used to cycle commute there was a short but sharp hill at the end of my ride home. If I pushed myself I'd get up it about 18-19mph, but given I was taking it easy on my commute it was more likely 10-13mph.
I'd quite often hop up onto the pavement if I could see it was clear (as there are no places for people to get out onto the pavement from the side of the hill).
It's just one of those things that really needs to be left up to common sense in the situation, and trusting that the cyclist is doing what they feel they need to do to be safe.
I will quite often sit in the middle of a road to try to stop cars overtaking me if I know I'm at a good pace and it's not particularly safe as many people have this notion that a pedal cycle cannot go faster than 12mph. When they're alongside you entering the corner and THEN they realise you're actually going 20-25mph is never good.
Surely you need more than a foot to get out past all the grates, potholes, dead badgers etc? I think 1 metre is acceptable whereas 1 foot is pushing it.
Popping out for the odd obstacle is fair enough but not constantly.
Although it depends on the circumstances.
Popping out for the odd obstacle is fair enough but not constantly.
Sorry, but that is absolute bullsh1t :smt068
Better and safer for all concerned if the cyclist steers a stead and consistent path rather than weaving in and out unpredictably.
The 1m gap is for safety - sudden opening of car doors, grids, gratings, rubbish in the gutters etc. It's for safety.
The VED issue has already been put to bed; it is an emissions tax. Hasn't been "road tax" since the 1920s.
I did add the caveat of "although it depends on the circumstances".
Also to be fair, my comments were based on personal experience of riding mountain bikes, one fairly robust and beefy full sus and one lightweight nimble but sturdy hardtail, both of which could handle themselves on rough terrain easily, so perhaps i did not care too much about the odd man hole or pothole etc. I would ride as fast as i could at the time and be roughly a foot away from the kerb. If you are one a road racer or maybe on of those new fangled hybrid commuter thingys which are less forgiving of an uneven road surface then i grant you, it will likely be a different story.
Also given that over my way the cycle lanes on the roads are a metre wide (at absolute best, generally just bigger than bars) and you generally ride in the middle which ok is 1.5 feet, but still. What i am talking about is the people who ride OUTSIDE the farkin cycle lanes that are there for them therefore being a metre+ away from the kerb (i probably could have made that bit clearer originally).
It is also probably worth noting that i do not live in a "city" as such, not like London etc where you are virtually always riding alongside parked cars etc, that situation is less than common. Here its more likely to be Kerb +/- cycle lane with the odd parked car so you do "pop out" to go past it.
Coming from a cyclist myself, I disagree with other riders that are on the road 1m away from the kerb! Riding in such a manner is only ever going to annoy unpatient cagers further, putting yourself in more harm. A foot or so is more than enough i find generally and if there is a big pothole you can avoid it (assuming you are aware of the vehicles around you, as you should be). As for compulsory insurance - how would it ever be enforced? Not possible unless you have some sort of registration. Besides, its illegal to ride on the path yet i regularily see the rozzers drive past cyclists doing this and they dont tell them off. They dont have to time to persue such things..
I think there should be some sort of insurance, even if it is part of your home policy.
There was a video posted online earlier this week of a cyclist running into the back of a new Porsche (Bike filtering, cars stopped at the same time rider did a shoulder check. Bang!). Fortunately there was no apparent damage as the riders arm hit the car, but if there was, there is nothing to make the cyclist pay.
It would cost me approx £150 to have scratches removed from my cars rear bumper and then resprayed. I'd hate to think what it would be on a car like that.
And that's just a small incident, what if a cyclist is responsible for a bigger, multiple car crash?
If you use the road with other people, you should be covered for any damage or injury you could cause.
But then, again, how on earth do you police it?!? It'll never happen ](*,)
The same could be said of pedestrians who walk into traffic and cause accidents. Never gona happen
maviczap
01-06-14, 07:26 PM
And that's just a small incident, what if a cyclist is responsible for a bigger, multiple car crash? I can't even fathom where you get this idea from?
The number of accidents caused by cyclists that require insurance are just too low compared to the amount of people it would deter. You've got the other problem of enforcement. With cars it's relatively easy, you have a database that the police can check - but how would you do it with bikes?
Yep, there's too few police about for normal traffic offences which are far more serious, texting & using mobile phones whilst driving for 2 prime examples, which cause far more accidents that cyclists are ever going to cause.
I can understand where you're coming from, and in my opinion, for serious cyclists third party insurance should be taken out.
Yep, I don't have a problem with this, plus if you get hit, then you can use their legal services to go after the driver who hit you.
However, out of 'my group' that cycle, in the last 3 years we've probably covered over 30,000 miles and I've not known anybody to have had/caused an accident that has affected anybody else.
I've been cycling for over 20 years as a serious cyclist & many more as an ordinary cyclist. I've never hit a car or caused an accident to my knowledge whilst on my bike. I've had close calls with pedestrians stepping of the pavement without looking, but whose fault is that?
I obey the highway code & stop at red traffic lights and cycle with caution through town. I don't cycle on the pavement, unless there's a marked cyclepath.
I know there's many cyclist both serious and commuters who flout the law & ride dangerously, I would have quite happily knocked off the guy who mounted the pavement to avoid a temporary traffic light outside my daughters school, plain dangerous as he was doing about 20mph on the pavement.
But insurance is unenforceable for the masses and generally not required, as the cyclist is more often that not the victim, not the cause.
City & town cyclists are a different breed to most cyclists. Perhaps if the Police were to stop adult cyclists riding on the pavement & jumping red lights as part of an exercise & then send them on some sort of traffic awareness course, that might cure some of this poor riding?
Bluefish
01-06-14, 07:38 PM
Hey peeps i'm back, Well having just been out today with the mrs on our new bikes of the push type, she is not fit for going on the road and we didn't, rode on the pavement, she wobbles about like it's her first time, well it is for a good few years, and on main roads some of the grates stick out about 20 inches. As said it's not the distance out but the weaving about like a drunk that causes problems.
maviczap
01-06-14, 07:41 PM
It'll get easier as time goes on, although it never gets really easy, you just get faster :D
Specialone
01-06-14, 08:11 PM
I've just started riding my mtb again recently, but I'm not a fan of road riding, I'm also getting sick of militant cyclists who ride two abreast in groups and don't give a **** that there's nowhere to pass so you sit behind them for quite a while at 7-10 mph, a long line then forms behind and so they could at least drop to single file to let the queue disperse, but no, all they care about is themselves.
I'm also getting sick of militant cyclists who ride two abreast in groups .......
Suggest that you and everyone else reads this:
http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html
:cool:
Specialone
01-06-14, 08:32 PM
Suggest that you and everyone else reads this:
http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html
:cool:
Mate I know the law regarding this issue thanks, it's about taking other road users in to consideration, just because it's legal (not all the time it's not, something cyclists could do with reading up on too) doesn't mean it's right, bit of common sense and consideration would go a long way.
On some roads it's downright dangerous to have a slow moving vehicle (two abreast cyclists are same footprint as a vehicle) on a fast road.
MisterTommyH
01-06-14, 08:51 PM
Rule 66 states you should never cycle more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads.
Ben.tattooer
01-06-14, 09:01 PM
Home insurance covers you. My boss just came off his thunderbird when a cyclist cut across him ( she thought a train was coming!! ) he ploughed into her and came offon a railway crossing. Her home insurance has covered everything.
Specialone
01-06-14, 09:04 PM
Rule 66 states you should never cycle more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads.
Exactly Tom, that's precisely where I always see them doing it.
I've just started riding my mtb again recently, but I'm not a fan of road riding, I'm also getting sick of militant cyclists who ride two abreast in groups and don't give a **** that there's nowhere to pass so you sit behind them for quite a while at 7-10 mph, a long line then forms behind and so they could at least drop to single file to let the queue disperse, but no, all they care about is themselves.
You should watch the Tour De France to get some ideas. I learned aaaaaaaaaaaaaged ago the best way to deal with it is to push the person at the front over. Then the rest crash into each other and they all fall off. Problem solved, happy me, happy car drivers happy everyone! The only issue with this is that on busy days your left arm does get a little tired.
Please note the above is not serious, true or to be taken as fact in any way, shape or form.
I find them the same as any other road user. Some are courteous, some are stupid arrogant feckers and other are clueless to the danger they put themselves in.
I find them the same as any other road user. Some are courteous, some are stupid arrogant feckers and other are clueless to the danger they put themselves in.
Wise words indeed...
EssexDave
02-06-14, 08:50 AM
Exactly Tom, that's precisely where I always see them doing it.
This can be a tricky one. I know the highway code says you shouldn't if it is a narrow or busy road. However, quite often I'm happy to sit two abreast if it still leaves space to overtake for the simple reason that it actually makes for an easier overtake. Why? Well if there are 8 cyclists, 8 in a line is a pretty long line and makes it pretty hard to overtake, whereas if you're only four long then it's less distance you must travel to get past.
It's no different to overtaking a milk float or a car, and if you're incapable of doing that in the circumstances, then perhaps a bit of patience is the best thing.
I will accept though, there are times when it's simply not appropriate, and that's something the cyclists must take into consideration.
I feel the problem we've had, is that too many cyclists forget so much when they get on their bikes. It's the same as car drivers in supermarkets, c'mon you all know what I'm talking about. People that generally aren't that bad on the road, but the second they're in a supermarket car park all the rules of the road disappears and bedlam ensues.
We really do need some form of compulsory education for all about bikes, and a bit more understanding on both sides!
You know that British Cycling are constantly lobbying and they are always developing their plans for the future; perhaps if you think if something that might help it'd be worth dropping them an email?
As an aside, the people who complain of cycling on the footpath and the police doing nothing about it, I'm pretty sure they've been given nationwide guidance basically saying that if it isn't dangerous just let it be. 20mph on a footpath is definitely dangerous, but I guess they use that as a way to avoid having to deal with it. It does allow kids and that to get away with it too though which isn't a bad thing necessarily!
On the issue of pavement cycling this is the recommendation made by Government when the new fixed penalty for pavement cycling was introduced...
“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
Littlepeahead
02-06-14, 10:48 AM
Vauxhall bridge and the surrounding area brought to a standstill this morning and a cyclist died after a truck hit them. No matter what your opinion, in London they've got to sort out the dangerous junctions. So many fatalities every year.
SvNewbie
02-06-14, 11:24 AM
Some of the cyclists in London look like they are trying their best to attain a Darwin award.
Cycling (or driving / riding for that matter) up the inside of any vehicle demonstrating an intent* to turn left is bloody stupid. Many vehicles which drive around the capital have stickers to remind people of this fact, and yet it continues to be one of the biggest sources of collisions.
Also, I'm disappointed in the number of people here suggesting that cyclists should ride in the gutter. I'm no fan of cyclists who are clearly holding up traffic behind for no reason, but expecting serious cyclists to ride in the potholes and crap at the side of the road is just silly. Many of these guys are doing 20-25mph quite consistently on a bike with no suspension at all. Different if it's a granny bike doing 7mph.
* As motorcyclists we all know that the indicators are the last thing to show the drivers intent in at least 50% of cases
I find most London cyclists on my commute pretty decent and switched on, tbh. I know they jump red lights but usually with the knowledge of how the junction is timed and it is therefore safe(ish). They're normally not hard to pass on a motorbike, but I can see how it can be frustrating for a car to have to pass the same cyclist(s) many times because they filter past at every traffic light and then get in the way on the straights.
The only ones that bug me are the ones who pull up just ahead and to my left when I'm clearly indicating to turn left, and then don't either wait for me to turn or set off quickly enough to get out of the way, and then ride straight on. In fact generally they don't have any awareness that I'm there at all. And this is normally in a left turn only lane, with plenty of space on my right hand side they could use. Funny how you just know what they're going to do before they even move.
EssexDave
02-06-14, 01:11 PM
Brings me back to my point, compulsory education for all. The school syllabus should include more on managing money, life administration, and road etiquette for pedestrians, cyclists, different types of motor vehicles etc.
Bit of a long shot but....
Perhaps if the gov subsidised cyclin proficiency courses with the sale of push bikes that may help?
EssexDave
02-06-14, 01:19 PM
Really needs to be for everyone Pyro so everybody grows up at least some knowledge. Could always make it part of the driving test or something of the sort.
They're normally not hard to pass on a motorbike, but I can see how it can be frustrating for a car to have to pass the same cyclist(s) many times because they filter past at every traffic light and then get in the way on the straights.
Surely though around town the cyclist is making progress faster than the cars in this situation, they're not getting in the way just slowing the motorist's progress to the next inevitable queue of traffic so not affecting the journey time for the motorist. Perhaps the frustration for the motorist comes from not seeing further than what is directly in front of him/her...
Cyclists aren't the problem but the answer to traffic problems in cities, imagine the traffic problems if all those cycle journeys in London were made by car.
EssexDave
02-06-14, 01:25 PM
To be fair in London banning cars completely would probably solve a lot of the congestion problems. Only buses, emergency vehicles and cyclists allowed. Imagine that, and the inevitable uproar.
Spank86
02-06-14, 01:35 PM
With regards to slow moving cyclists holding up traffic and their legal right to ride two abreast or whatever.
Rule 169... Pull over.
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169
To be fair in London banning cars completely would probably solve a lot of the congestion problems. Only buses, emergency vehicles and cyclists allowed. Imagine that, and the inevitable uproar.
To be fair, if the tube wasn't such a nightmare I would happily travel in London more that way.
As it stands I hate driving in London and I hate taking public transport as it's so horrendous.
But then I'm used to less packed buses and not too much human traffic (still too much for my liking but no where near the scale of London etc)
I could happily support banning like you describe, although maybe m/c's and delivery vans should be allowed
Perhaps the frustration for the motorist comes from not seeing further than what is directly in front of him/her...
Yeah I don't disagree with that. A little patience goes a long way. And if the cyclists are in bus lanes, they cause no issues at all.
Really needs to be for everyone Pyro so everybody grows up at least some knowledge. Could always make it part of the driving test or something of the sort.
Yeah that's a fair point, but you have to start somewhere and that's the easiest option I can think of.
Just consider everytime anyone suggests changes to the driving tests how much of a stink is kicked up
I could happily support banning like you describe, although maybe m/c's and delivery vans should be allowed
That's kinda what we have, with an added exception for the rich who can afford congestion & parking charges.
That's kinda what we have, with an added exception for the rich who can afford congestion & parking charges.
Haha or the odd supercar "taxi"
The schools don't do bikeability for kids until they are 10 ( year 6). School children at 6 ( year 2) are taught about dangers of crossing the road ( kerbcarft). Many of those already have 2 -3 years of bike riding under their belt.
I don't think its necessary wise to let loose a load of school children on the roads but promoting safer riding and awareness at a young age may propagate better riding later in life.
I think the number of hgv and lorries contribute of fatalities in London...
With regards to slow moving cyclists holding up traffic and their legal right to ride two abreast or whatever.
Rule 169... Pull over.
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169
However you rarely see cycles holding up "a long queue of traffic" as stated in Rule 169, ultimately they are much easier to pass than a large chunk of farm machinery etc. but yes they may add a few seconds to your journey.
Spank86
02-06-14, 02:53 PM
However you rarely see cycles holding up "a long queue of traffic" as stated in Rule 169, ultimately they are much easier to pass than a large chunk of farm machinery etc. but yes they may add a few seconds to your journey.
Actually I see it quite often.
perhaps not in Essex or big cities like London but quite often in small old towns round here when it's busy.
Actually I see it quite often.
perhaps not in Essex or big cities like London but quite often in small old towns round here when it's busy.
I see your point, we're lucky in Essex to have loads of quiet lanes to play with. As Dave says it's about education on both sides, tolerance and understanding is way better better than impatience and ignorance.
Mrs DJ Fridge
02-06-14, 09:52 PM
HGV's have special bike mirrors which if used correctly are very helpful when driving, but bike riders must be aware that the lorry driver might not have seen them despite everyone's best intentions. All the HGV drivers I know are very aware of the danger to bikes and do their upmost to avoid them. In the test they go to great lenghts to point out the dangers to other road users, and you are told to imagine that every kerb has a baby in a pushchair on it.
Littlepeahead
02-06-14, 10:06 PM
Today's accident was a tipper truck, of the 6 fatalities this year it seems like tippers were involved frequently and at known accident blackspots. The cost to businesses today with staff arriving late for work due to the gridlock, 3 to 4 hours in many cases, probably cost far more than it would cost to remodel that junction to make it safer.
maviczap
03-06-14, 07:33 AM
HGV's have special bike mirrors which if used correctly are very helpful when driving, but bike riders must be aware that the lorry driver might not have seen them despite everyone's best intentions. All the HGV drivers I know are very aware of the danger to bikes and do their upmost to avoid them. In the test they go to great lenghts to point out the dangers to other road users, and you are told to imagine that every kerb has a baby in a pushchair on it.
Today's accident was a tipper truck, of the 6 fatalities this year it seems like tippers were involved frequently and at known accident blackspots. The cost to businesses today with staff arriving late for work due to the gridlock, 3 to 4 hours in many cases, probably cost far more than it would cost to remodel that junction to make it safer.
The trouble is with most adult cyclists is that they buy a bike and then they are straight out on the road. They're wearing helmets (most of the time) and hi viz, so they think they're safe. They've only been used to driving their cars which is a nice cocooned environment.
Some sort of training would go to reducing some of these fatalities, although I don't know at what point you could deliver it.
Hazard perception by these born again cyclists is a big problem I think, not jut driver error & poor road design.
ClunkintheUK
03-06-14, 10:13 AM
As job said, there are idiots and A-holes in every group, cyclists included.
Also, on the insurance front, aren't cyclists still liable for any damage they cause irrespective of whether or not they have insurance? A lot of commuters in London have third party liability and legal cover.
Some of the cyclists I saw on my commute (cycling) had absolutely shocking hazard perception. Then again, so do most minicabs, some drivers, a lot of scooter riders and many white van men.
LPH, was the accident north side, or south side of Vauxhall bridge?
Littlepeahead
03-06-14, 12:29 PM
South side I think. I only heard because the visiting team bus on the way to the Oval got caught in the traffic. The players ended up unloading their gear and walking to the ground past the accident so that would be south.
ClunkintheUK
04-06-14, 11:59 AM
Yeah, I know the junction. You gotta keep your head switched on, It is a huge junction taking a lot of traffic. But there are loads of cycle lanes all around it. The remoddelling would probably be best at just re-inforcing these, probably not even a big deal.
I, for one, do not use the cycles lanes around there as they are in really bad repair, are not clearly de-marked from the pedestrians, and I can keep up with the traffic round the one way system.
yorkie_chris
04-06-14, 12:14 PM
It's not road tax, it's an emmisson tax, based on how much you vehicle pumps out. Pushbikes don't pump out pollution, so don't pay Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not a road tax.
You seen some of these cnuts in lycra? Eye pollution.
You seen some of these cnuts in lycra? Eye pollution.
One of the benefits of being in London. No pollution round here! Not from the lycra clad pushbiker-esses anyway.
maviczap
04-06-14, 07:33 PM
You seen some of these cnuts in lycra? Eye pollution.
Something like this then sweetie ;)
http://m2.i.pbase.com/g1/50/48650/2/113199902.ftYaGJ8E.jpg
I'm still fairly new to this commuting into London lark, and I still maintain that 99% of cyclists are ok.
So the other day I encountered "dopey death-wish cyclist" - posted earlier in this thread about that. There's a fair few about.
Today I came across "mouthy self-righteous cyclist". I'd filtered at some red lights to the front of the queue, and I noticed several cyclists stuck behind me, so I eased forward into the cyclist zone to let them through. Whilst waiting for the lights to change, another cyclist filters through from another gap on the left and pulls his bike across the front of mine, like almost a T shape. Ok fine, but he dawdles when the lights change. So when my engine revs start to rise, he shouts at me, lip-read as something about keeping out of cyclist areas - couldn't quite make it out as my clutch control isn't very good when avoiding mouthy cyclists and my engine might have been bouncing off the rev limiter.
Does anyone else find their clutch control affected in this way?
Any more comedy cyclist categories to add? There must be hundreds.
I'm still fairly new to this commuting into London lark, and I still maintain that 99% of cyclists are ok.
So the other day I encountered "dopey death-wish cyclist" - posted earlier in this thread about that. There's a fair few about.
Today I came across "mouthy self-righteous cyclist". I'd filtered at some red lights to the front of the queue, and I noticed several cyclists stuck behind me, so I eased forward into the cyclist zone to let them through. Whilst waiting for the lights to change, another cyclist filters through from another gap on the left and pulls his bike across the front of mine, like almost a T shape. Ok fine, but he dawdles when the lights change. So when my engine revs start to rise, he shouts at me, lip-read as something about keeping out of cyclist areas - couldn't quite make it out as my clutch control isn't very good when avoiding mouthy cyclists and my engine might have been bouncing off the rev limiter.
Does anyone else find their clutch control affected in this way?
Any more comedy cyclist categories to add? There must be hundreds.
Be careful entering the cycle box, at the moment if you get caught it's 3 points, £100 fine and the same offence code as jumping a red light but that still doesn't make "mouthy self-righteous cyclist" right!
SvNewbie
12-06-14, 09:25 AM
In theory. In reality most of the police cars I've seen on the road are as **** with cycle boxes as the rest of the road users. I try to avoid entering them unless I filter to the front and the car at the front hasn't stopped in the correct place (though, I'll admit they may have entered on amber / green which is perfectly legal) in which case I'll filter move far enough forward that they can see me, cycle box or no cycle box.
ClunkintheUK
12-06-14, 10:43 AM
Police can only do you for entering the cycle box if they have seen you enter on a red light. If a controlled stop for a yellow to red light brings you to a stop at the advanced stop line (in the bike box), that is perfectly legal.
The fact that he came along afterwards shows that mouthy self-righteous cyclist means he probably didn't see what happened. They were talking about trialling it being legal for motorbikes to stop in these boxes, after a lobbying from motorbike groups that having the pushbikes in front of the motorbikes like that is in fact dangerous.
I often stopped in them on the motorbike, i.e. filtered to the front and used the space especially from the right hand side of the cars.
SvNewbie
12-06-14, 11:35 AM
There are some signs up on Chiswick high road which show the 'correct' use of cycle boxes. The motorcyclist is to the right of the car stopped before the line with the cyclist in front.
Unfortunately no one seems to have considered how you get to that state since the motorbike will be blocking the pushbikes path to the front in a significant number of instances. Maybe they expect the cyclist to go up the left of the vehicle stopped at the line, because that is safe...
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.