Roundabout Rule Change
Discussion
Mirror article said:
It states: "You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout. They will be travelling more slowly than motorised traffic.
(my bold)Pretty certain that's not always the case - so the use of will is a bit naff.
Anyway - this is silly. Cyclists have always been encouraged to stay left ("wide" / "outside") at roundabouts if they're not confident about using the lanes "properly". It's always been the case that you need to be aware / give way to somebody who is already occupying a piece of road (you can't just plough into them).
Let's just stop running folk over with cars / vans ey? Cyclists / pedestrians WILL do stupid stuff sometimes (as will motorists) - so it's not unexpected, let's drive like it, rather than expecting to be able to drive everywhere at (or over) the speed limit without a care in the world.
Pica-Pica said:
It does not say that, and you well know it.
article said:
For the first time, the law will require those who can do the greatest harm to others to have a higher level of responsibility to reduce the danger.
A lorry is bigger than my car so will do significantly more harm to me than vice versa!But you obviously missed the great big smiley at the end of my post - so you'd better have better observational skills when you're driving
PLEASE NOTE SARCASTIC SMILEY ABOVE
akirk said:
The Highway Code has always included instruction that you should give way to others to avoid accidents, even when they are out of position / in the wrong lane / etc. - so if you drove according to the previous HC you will have no issue driving according to this one 
Not to mention it EXPLICITLY states cyclists may use the outside lane for ANY roundabout exit and should be given time/space to do so... Of course I have had drivers get pissed when they fail to grasp that it still recommends cyclists use the correct lane wherever possible as this is still more predictable and therefore safer.TBH I find a lot of the arguments about the new rules show exactly why the changes are needed;
One of the few cases where it actually changes priority rather than just clarifying is vehicles turning from minor to major now have to give way to pedestrians crossing yet vehicles going the other way is the one everyone comments on, despite the fact that as soon as the pedestrian enters the road they already have absolute priority over a vehicle turning into a side road per rule 170 (so you should always have been ready to give way and failure of the pedestrian to check wouldn't stop you being liable so the rules now explicitly stating a pedestrian waiting on the pavement also has priority shouldn't change safe driving).
But the changes won't help; the drivers who need to improve won't pay a blind bit of notice and are also busy complaining that the gov hasn't told anyone about the changes (despite every major news source having an article on it, usually about how it is totally unfair that drivers don't know the HW code is changing... A public information campaign isn't going to spread that any further...)
qwerty360 said:
Not to mention it EXPLICITLY states cyclists may use the outside lane for ANY roundabout exit and should be given time/space to do so... Of course I have had drivers get pissed when they fail to grasp that it still recommends cyclists use the correct lane wherever possible as this is still more predictable and therefore safer.
TBH I find a lot of the arguments about the new rules show exactly why the changes are needed;
One of the few cases where it actually changes priority rather than just clarifying is vehicles turning from minor to major now have to give way to pedestrians crossing yet vehicles going the other way is the one everyone comments on, despite the fact that as soon as the pedestrian enters the road they already have absolute priority over a vehicle turning into a side road per rule 170 (so you should always have been ready to give way and failure of the pedestrian to check wouldn't stop you being liable so the rules now explicitly stating a pedestrian waiting on the pavement also has priority shouldn't change safe driving).
But the changes won't help; the drivers who need to improve won't pay a blind bit of notice and are also busy complaining that the gov hasn't told anyone about the changes (despite every major news source having an article on it, usually about how it is totally unfair that drivers don't know the HW code is changing... A public information campaign isn't going to spread that any further...)
Yep... but good luck with going around the outside of the roundabout here! There'd be a very good chance of being cut up and having to take the first exit to avoid a crash...TBH I find a lot of the arguments about the new rules show exactly why the changes are needed;
One of the few cases where it actually changes priority rather than just clarifying is vehicles turning from minor to major now have to give way to pedestrians crossing yet vehicles going the other way is the one everyone comments on, despite the fact that as soon as the pedestrian enters the road they already have absolute priority over a vehicle turning into a side road per rule 170 (so you should always have been ready to give way and failure of the pedestrian to check wouldn't stop you being liable so the rules now explicitly stating a pedestrian waiting on the pavement also has priority shouldn't change safe driving).
But the changes won't help; the drivers who need to improve won't pay a blind bit of notice and are also busy complaining that the gov hasn't told anyone about the changes (despite every major news source having an article on it, usually about how it is totally unfair that drivers don't know the HW code is changing... A public information campaign isn't going to spread that any further...)
And the "cycle lane" isn't any better, as it's an uncontrolled crossing of a two lane motorway slip road. Best strategy is far and away to get in the correct lane. But that can be easier said than done.
The advice all seems to be common sense stuff about showing consideration for the wellbeing of other road users. It doesn't seem to be much of a change; just some new text to try and emphasize the point.
I do know that as a cyclist, the sorts of situations that this relates to were much easier for me when I was younger and super-fit. Then I could confidently cycle up the centre of the middle or outside lane at 20mph knowing I wasn't getting in the way for more than a few seconds. Now, if I want to turn right it can be a bit of a conundrum.
I do know that as a cyclist, the sorts of situations that this relates to were much easier for me when I was younger and super-fit. Then I could confidently cycle up the centre of the middle or outside lane at 20mph knowing I wasn't getting in the way for more than a few seconds. Now, if I want to turn right it can be a bit of a conundrum.
It's a terrible idea to tell cyclists that they can cut up motor vehicles.
I've been cycling on the road since I was a kid and commuting daily into central London on a bicycle so I'm not saying this from a point of view of disrespect for cyclists.
The one thing cyclists should put ahead of everything else is that if they come into contact with a motor vehicle the likelihood is high that it ain't going to end well.
I don't think cyclists should ever be given the impression that they're entitled to use the road space normally occupied by cars and that the law is on their side so they're okay to go ahead!
When I cycle on the roads I don't expect anything from motorists. I don't want them to let me out, I don't want them to pass me wide and I don't want the roads closed so I have exclusive use of them on my bike.
The reason is simply that my safety is entirely my responsibility, trusting it to anyone else for any reason puts you in an extremely vulnerable position. If there is a chance that that person isn't looking, hasn't seen you or is surprised when you move into their path and you get flattened it doesn't matter whose fault it was... you're still seriously injured. I'll continue to look out for myself when cycling on the road regardless to what they write in their little book.
I've been cycling on the road since I was a kid and commuting daily into central London on a bicycle so I'm not saying this from a point of view of disrespect for cyclists.
The one thing cyclists should put ahead of everything else is that if they come into contact with a motor vehicle the likelihood is high that it ain't going to end well.
I don't think cyclists should ever be given the impression that they're entitled to use the road space normally occupied by cars and that the law is on their side so they're okay to go ahead!
When I cycle on the roads I don't expect anything from motorists. I don't want them to let me out, I don't want them to pass me wide and I don't want the roads closed so I have exclusive use of them on my bike.
The reason is simply that my safety is entirely my responsibility, trusting it to anyone else for any reason puts you in an extremely vulnerable position. If there is a chance that that person isn't looking, hasn't seen you or is surprised when you move into their path and you get flattened it doesn't matter whose fault it was... you're still seriously injured. I'll continue to look out for myself when cycling on the road regardless to what they write in their little book.
it is indeed a daft idea. As the rule as one reads it isnt clear what it means. So does give way to a cyclist or horse trump give way to traffic from the right? Ie a cyclist or horse can just enter the roundabout without giving way to traffic (cars) already on it?
I can see this and the priority for pedestrians crossing a side street causing a lot of accidents and near misses.
These are the sort of stupid changes brought in by people who don't really use the roads.
I can see this and the priority for pedestrians crossing a side street causing a lot of accidents and near misses.
These are the sort of stupid changes brought in by people who don't really use the roads.
Just for clarity the new wording is
Drivers would be advised to give priority to cyclists on a roundabout, to give them plenty of room, not attempt to overtake within their lane, and to allow cyclists to move across their path as they travel around the roundabout. There would be further advice that cyclists may stay in the lefthand lane when they intend to continue across or around the roundabout, and that drivers should take extra care when entering a roundabout to ensure that they do not cut across cyclists in the left-hand lane who are continuing around the roundabout.
So it only applies to cyclists on the roundabout not cyclists joining a roundabout, and there is no MUSTs so no law changes. But seems to me to read don't be a dick
Drivers would be advised to give priority to cyclists on a roundabout, to give them plenty of room, not attempt to overtake within their lane, and to allow cyclists to move across their path as they travel around the roundabout. There would be further advice that cyclists may stay in the lefthand lane when they intend to continue across or around the roundabout, and that drivers should take extra care when entering a roundabout to ensure that they do not cut across cyclists in the left-hand lane who are continuing around the roundabout.
So it only applies to cyclists on the roundabout not cyclists joining a roundabout, and there is no MUSTs so no law changes. But seems to me to read don't be a dick
Donbot said:
ingenieur said:
It's a terrible idea to tell cyclists that they can cut up motor vehicles.
Eh?Hey cyclist... psst... see that car... he has to stop for you if you want to cut in front of him...
Get it now?
ingenieur said:
Donbot said:
ingenieur said:
It's a terrible idea to tell cyclists that they can cut up motor vehicles.
Eh?Hey cyclist... psst... see that car... he has to stop for you if you want to cut in front of him...
Get it now?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff