What road traffic law would you introduce?
Discussion
Graveworm said:
Dammit said:
There's no conflict between the highway code and cycling safely, so that's a false dichotomy.
i.e. moving out to take the lane to prevent a car from passing at a pinch point, that sort of thing.
I
Except the highway code says in terms - NEVER block someone trying to overtake. It places all the onus on deciding whether an overtake is safe or has sufficient room on the overtaking vehicle. I understand that many overtaking drivers don't abide by the highway code so what you describe may be prudent, but it's incompatible with the HC as written. i.e. moving out to take the lane to prevent a car from passing at a pinch point, that sort of thing.
I
1) not visible (due to bend)
2) not available for use (due to road furniture / island etc)
Cyclists taking the lane are doing motorists a favour - stopping them making a poor decision to overtake inappropriately.
Obviously any cyclist who doesn't move back over to the left a touch once the danger has passed is a knobber
Wooda80 said:
ghe13rte said:
mko9 said:
Devil's advocate - anyone too stupid to move out of the passing lane, when faster traffic appears on their rear bumper, should receive a 2 year ban. ;-)
Devil's advocate - anyone too stupid to think that someone already driving at the speed limit would need to move out of the way for faster traffic should be banned from driving as their attitude is not conducive to safety and it demonstrates a refusal to accept regulation. Here’s the same again in shorter bursts
1. A driver cruising at the speed limit and pulling past cars to the left
2. The devil and his advocate approach driver at 1. at a speed above said limit
3. The driver at 1. cruising at or about the limit and passing traffic need not alter speed or course
4. Speed Devils can wait to pass
Charging around at speeds above the limit affords you no courtesy as I believe mko9 was suggesting
tigger1 said:
Graveworm said:
Dammit said:
There's no conflict between the highway code and cycling safely, so that's a false dichotomy.
i.e. moving out to take the lane to prevent a car from passing at a pinch point, that sort of thing.
I
Except the highway code says in terms - NEVER block someone trying to overtake. It places all the onus on deciding whether an overtake is safe or has sufficient room on the overtaking vehicle. I understand that many overtaking drivers don't abide by the highway code so what you describe may be prudent, but it's incompatible with the HC as written. i.e. moving out to take the lane to prevent a car from passing at a pinch point, that sort of thing.
I
1) not visible (due to bend)
2) not available for use (due to road furniture / island etc)
Cyclists taking the lane are doing motorists a favour - stopping them making a poor decision to overtake inappropriately.
Obviously any cyclist who doesn't move back over to the left a touch once the danger has passed is a knobber
It's not illegal, probably not wrong but has to be incompatible with the highway code.
Never you mind said:
If you ears stick out way past your flat cap and you are driving a Honda jazz you are required by law to pull over, get out of the car and get a taxi.
Same goes if you drive a Yaris.
I'd say the same for wearers of baseball caps - but in any car and get a bus rather than a taxi - that'll teach them for driving slowly with their damned black boxes.Same goes if you drive a Yaris.
chunder27 said:
I would happily bring in a law where trained civilians can drive around the roads in certain patches snap fining people for being on their phones in cars, using some kind of clever camera in a car or something
I would volunteer, never get bored of it, am sure initially it would raise thousands
A&E have got quite enough workload without having to patch you up as a regular customer.I would volunteer, never get bored of it, am sure initially it would raise thousands
Never you mind said:
If you ears stick out way past your flat cap and you are driving a Honda jazz you are required by law to pull over, get out of the car and get a taxi.
Same goes if you drive a Yaris.
What happens to the people that hold me up while I'm driving my Honda Jazz, do they come in for any special treatment? Same goes if you drive a Yaris.
Graveworm said:
The 2 posts referred to and quoted by me both said they were moving out or taking the lane to prevent a vehicle from passing. What you are describing is the overtaken vehicle making decisions on overtakes and literally blocking a vehicle trying to pass.
It's not illegal, probably not wrong but has to be incompatible with the highway code.
Not quite - it's preventing a vehicle from overtaking in the lane, it's not preventing an overtake - if, of course, it was safe to perform it in the first place.It's not illegal, probably not wrong but has to be incompatible with the highway code.
If it's not safe, then it can't be done.
It's also worth noting that the cyclist has a responsibility to keep themselves safe - and by staying tight to the kerb they are putting themselves in danger, most especially when such behaviour means that a motorist might choose to make a pass at a dangerous point.
Also - might be worth defining "over-take", as that suggests moving into the oncoming lane to pass another vehicle, which is absolutely not being prevented in the situation I'm describing. By the cyclist anyway.
Dammit said:
Not quite - it's preventing a vehicle from overtaking in the lane, it's not preventing an overtake - if, of course, it was safe to perform it in the first place.
If it's not safe, then it can't be done.
It's also worth noting that the cyclist has a responsibility to keep themselves safe - and by staying tight to the kerb they are putting themselves in danger, most especially when such behaviour means that a motorist might choose to make a pass at a dangerous point.
Also - might be worth defining "over-take", as that suggests moving into the oncoming lane to pass another vehicle, which is absolutely not being prevented in the situation I'm describing. By the cyclist anyway.
There is a big difference between preventing an overtake in the sense of forcing an overtaker to change their plans or crash, and discouraging an attempt at an overtake by using the width of the roadIf it's not safe, then it can't be done.
It's also worth noting that the cyclist has a responsibility to keep themselves safe - and by staying tight to the kerb they are putting themselves in danger, most especially when such behaviour means that a motorist might choose to make a pass at a dangerous point.
Also - might be worth defining "over-take", as that suggests moving into the oncoming lane to pass another vehicle, which is absolutely not being prevented in the situation I'm describing. By the cyclist anyway.
Dr Jekyll said:
There is a big difference between preventing an overtake in the sense of forcing an overtaker to change their plans or crash, and discouraging an attempt at an overtake by using the width of the road
There is a difference but they are both blocking a vehicle trying to overtake. Which is what one should never do. If a weekend warrior car driver, who didn't like being overtaken, straddled the lanes or drove on the offside to discourage an attempt at an overtake, how would that be different in terms of what the highway code says?mko9 said:
Devil's advocate - anyone too stupid to move out of the passing lane, when faster traffic appears on their rear bumper, should receive a 2 year ban. ;-)
Um, if I’m in L3, overtaking solid traffic in L2, am I meant to barge in to L2 to satisfy the idiocy of someone who is driving dangerously?But on the general point of someone sitting in L2 or L2 without anything on the inside, yeah, immediate destruction with a 30mm autocannon seems appropriate.
Dammit said:
Not quite - it's preventing a vehicle from overtaking in the lane, it's not preventing an overtake - if, of course, it was safe to perform it in the first place.
If it's not safe, then it can't be done.
It's also worth noting that the cyclist has a responsibility to keep themselves safe - and by staying tight to the kerb they are putting themselves in danger, most especially when such behaviour means that a motorist might choose to make a pass at a dangerous point.
Also - might be worth defining "over-take", as that suggests moving into the oncoming lane to pass another vehicle, which is absolutely not being prevented in the situation I'm describing. By the cyclist anyway.
The cyclist could best keep themselves safe by stopping and pulling over, or slowing down to allow the vehicle to pass. Both would be in keeping with the highway code.If it's not safe, then it can't be done.
It's also worth noting that the cyclist has a responsibility to keep themselves safe - and by staying tight to the kerb they are putting themselves in danger, most especially when such behaviour means that a motorist might choose to make a pass at a dangerous point.
Also - might be worth defining "over-take", as that suggests moving into the oncoming lane to pass another vehicle, which is absolutely not being prevented in the situation I'm describing. By the cyclist anyway.
Nothing about moving into the oncoming lane to be an overtake.
Overtake:
Oxford: Catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction.
Cambridge: Pass to come from behind another vehicle or a person and move in front of them.
Collins: If you overtake a vehicle or a person that is ahead of you and moving in the same direction, you pass them.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 15th October 19:51
Graveworm said:
The 2 posts referred to and quoted by me both said they were moving out or taking the lane to prevent a vehicle from passing. What you are describing is the overtaken vehicle making decisions on overtakes and literally blocking a vehicle trying to pass.
It's not illegal, probably not wrong but has to be incompatible with the highway code.
Now, if I take the lane all the time, then I'm not trying to prevent an overtake, I'm just riding normally. It's not illegal, probably not wrong but has to be incompatible with the highway code.
Graveworm said:
The cyclist could best keep themselves safe by stopping and pulling over, or slowing down to allow the vehicle to pass. Both would be in keeping with the highway code.
Nothing about moving into the oncoming lane to be an overtake.
Overtake:
Oxford: Catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction.
Cambridge: Pass to come from behind another vehicle or a person and move in front of them.
Collins: If you overtake a vehicle or a person that is ahead of you and moving in the same direction, you pass them.
Nothing about moving into the oncoming lane to be an overtake.
Overtake:
Oxford: Catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction.
Cambridge: Pass to come from behind another vehicle or a person and move in front of them.
Collins: If you overtake a vehicle or a person that is ahead of you and moving in the same direction, you pass them.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 15th October 19:51
The more you post the less certain that I am that you cycle or drive. Or I'm becoming more certain that you either do neither, or you do neither safely. You sound like many a pita filling the roads these days.
heebeegeetee said:
The more you post the less certain that I am that you cycle or drive. Or I'm becoming more certain that you either do neither, or you do neither safely. You sound like many a pita filling the roads these days.
I do cycle and drive, the latter, apparently to a reasonable standard. It goes without saying that, like everyone who puts on the cleats, I am a cycling god. 
This was never about reality. This was about not kidding ourselves that the reality was in keeping with what the highway code said.
I personally have little issue with most of what the cyclists are talking about IN THIS THREAD, but you would be surprised how quickly this can go too far. I do think when we ride with cars it does not do us any harm to be considerate where possible. Currently it seems to be going the other way and we are alienating them.
If we constantly go against what the HC says, especially when saying we are only doing it to make sure car drivers DO comply; we may, increase the conflict and make car users feel justified in doing likewise. That's a much higher risk for us.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 16th October 09:54
ghe13rte said:
Wooda80 said:
ghe13rte said:
mko9 said:
Devil's advocate - anyone too stupid to move out of the passing lane, when faster traffic appears on their rear bumper, should receive a 2 year ban. ;-)
Devil's advocate - anyone too stupid to think that someone already driving at the speed limit would need to move out of the way for faster traffic should be banned from driving as their attitude is not conducive to safety and it demonstrates a refusal to accept regulation. Here’s the same again in shorter bursts
1. A driver cruising at the speed limit and pulling past cars to the left
2. The devil and his advocate approach driver at 1. at a speed above said limit
3. The driver at 1. cruising at or about the limit and passing traffic need not alter speed or course
4. Speed Devils can wait to pass
Charging around at speeds above the limit affords you no courtesy as I believe mko9 was suggesting
Obviously I don't agree with your usual juvenile rudeness, sarcasm and pointless hyperbole but the point that the driver in lane 3 need not alter speed or course is correct; assuming they are overtaking.
Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 16th October 18:37
Crackie said:
I'm slightly disturbed because I agree with you.....
Obviously I don't agree with your usual juvenile rudeness, sarcasm and pointless hyperbole but the point that the driver in lane 3 need not alter speed or course is correct; assuming they are overtaking.
Definitely this. Obviously I don't agree with your usual juvenile rudeness, sarcasm and pointless hyperbole but the point that the driver in lane 3 need not alter speed or course is correct; assuming they are overtaking.
Naturally the overtaking vehicle should try to get the pass done quickly. However this should never pressure them to drive faster than is safe, legal or they are comfortable with. Any following vehicles need to accept that.
Graveworm said:
1. I do cycle and drive, the latter, apparently to a reasonable standard. It goes without saying like every rider I am a cycling god.
2. I personally have little issue with most of what the cyclists are talking about IN THIS THREAD, but you would be surprised how quickly this can go too far.
3. If we constantly go against what the HC says, especially when saying we are only doing it to make sure car drivers DO comply; we may, increase the conflict and make car users feel justified in doing likewise. That's a much higher risk for us.
1. So you say, but I'm sorry, your posts come across to me as that of the bog standard average driver, the type who barely manages to cope with any challenge whatsoever, and spends more time complaining about cyclists than being delayed by them.2. I personally have little issue with most of what the cyclists are talking about IN THIS THREAD, but you would be surprised how quickly this can go too far.
3. If we constantly go against what the HC says, especially when saying we are only doing it to make sure car drivers DO comply; we may, increase the conflict and make car users feel justified in doing likewise. That's a much higher risk for us.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 16th October 09:52
2. You right, I would be surprised. You can see my post count, and I've been driving for 40 years, and in that time the casualty rates have come down.
3. Who is "we"? I mean, apart from a select band of advanced drivers, and the few people who might seek to obey all tenets of law and highway code, we all go against what the HC says. I've been on PH runs, which have been great and its been great meeting up with the guys, but we do go out and rather smash some (or perhaps many) of the HC's rules. Pedestrians ignore the HC rules. Motorcyclists and/or the people they tangle with play roughshod with the HC and motoring law and have a casualty and fatality rate on another scale, but there aren't constant threads complaining about that, for some reason (especially when you consider the delays they must cause by having so many accidents and collisions)
So, nobody else is worried about causing conflict, not those on foot, not those on high powered 2-wheelers, not people in 1-44+ tonne vehicles, most certainly not commuters in cars, (indeed they seem to thrive on conflict)... so why on earth would you pick cyclists out? As always, there's no sense or logic behind it.
As for laws I would introduce:
Firstly I would clear up a lot of the areas where we have to resort to Inconsiderate, careless reckless. So either ban or allow passing on the nearside, legislate specifically against failing to maintain lane discipline along with following too closely to the vehicle in front. This would simplify matters for those enforcing the law and clarify what is expected of road users as decades of "Education" does not seem to have worked and most genuinely don't know that they are doing anything wrong.
I would also try to draft a law so that, any savings that local authorities make from failing to adequately maintain roads or cycle paths would be the least amount deducted from their central government grant.
Firstly I would clear up a lot of the areas where we have to resort to Inconsiderate, careless reckless. So either ban or allow passing on the nearside, legislate specifically against failing to maintain lane discipline along with following too closely to the vehicle in front. This would simplify matters for those enforcing the law and clarify what is expected of road users as decades of "Education" does not seem to have worked and most genuinely don't know that they are doing anything wrong.
I would also try to draft a law so that, any savings that local authorities make from failing to adequately maintain roads or cycle paths would be the least amount deducted from their central government grant.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff