"We are the Highway Code“

[Mave]

MustangGT said:

Mave said:

MustangGT said:

LordBretSinclair said:

MustangGT said:

IIRC the HC requires you overtake to the offside, so no, because he should not be passing on the left.

S163, which is for all road users says::

? only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so

What about the rest of that rule for cyclists????
"Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left .........."

Good point. However, that does contradict other rules, about distancing etc. A cyclist should be at least 50cm out from the kerb, and the vehicle driver should leave at least 1.5m. This would require the driver to have both noticed the cyclist and be able to leave 2m from the kerb. It does also state the cyclist should be careful doing it.

Once again, legislation passed without considering other aspects of it.

That rule is for "riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you"... Ie not applicable to a cyclist passing slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left

Correct, however, the OP stated he was travelling at around 20mph, the signed speed limit, so it cannot apply.

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so yes, it can apply.

[CDP]

Mave said:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so yes, it can apply.

Frankly they should apply to cyclist too. Although to breach most limits they would need to be probably be cycling wantonly and could be prosecuted anyway.

[monthou]

CDP said:

Mave said:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists so yes, it can apply.

Frankly they should apply to cyclist too. Although to breach most limits they would need to be probably be cycling wantonly and could be prosecuted anyway.

No. They couldn't. Not even for wanton and furious cycling.

[gazza285]

4rephill said:

It's all basically a plan to make driving as miserable as possible, and cause big delays, as vehicles are forced to travel at bicycle speeds, instead of motor vehicle speeds, in the hope that people will ditch their vehicles

Most of my commute is on the M62/M1/A64, however the rest of it is on urban single carriageway. Obviously there’s no cyclists on the motorways or A64, but on the rest I wish I could go at cycling speeds, but there’s too many cars in the way.

[Solocle]

gazza285 said:

Most of my commute is on the M62/M1/A64, however the rest of it is on urban single carriageway. Obviously there’s no cyclists on the motorways or A64, but on the rest I wish I could go at cycling speeds, but there’s too many cars in the way.

I misinterpreted the signs at the start of the A58(M) one time on my bike. I read the green panel as one more exit before the motorway.

Fortunately I was headed up the A65 and away from the city centre.


The A64 certainly has potential for cyclists, and crossing pedestrians.

[wibble cb]

Milkyway said:

When walking, pedestrians should walk facing the oncoming traffic... for their safety.

It seems that cyclists have adopted this rule too now.

Please don’t move to Toronto, we have lots of one way streets, cyclists feel is perfectly acceptable to ride against the traffic, with not a care in the world, they glare and remonstrate at you for not leaving them room while they endanger themselves…

[Foss62]

4rephill said:

My understanding of the new ( ridiculous ) Laws is:

If you intend to turn left, you should check for cyclists who are behind you, cycling on your nearside, and rather than the cyclist having to slow for the vehicle ahead, to allow it to turn left, the vehicle ahead has to slow down and stop if need be, to allow the cyclist to undertake them, before turning left.

I seem to recall that this also applies if the cyclist is also turning left - So you have to let the cyclist get ahead of you, and then be held up by them, rather than you simply driving off on your way ahead of them, without being delayed by the cyclist.


It's all basically a plan to make driving as miserable as possible, and cause big delays, as vehicles are forced to travel at bicycle speeds, instead of motor vehicle speeds, in the hope that people will ditch their vehicles

All you need to do is what you should always have been doing - making sure that when you change direction you do it without affecting the progress of other road users. I imagine you wouldn’t be happy with someone in lane 2 cutting across you to take a slip road and making you brake hard, so why do you think it’s OK to do the same thing to a cyclist on the inside or a pedestrian on the pavement?

[donkmeister]

Foss62 said:

4rephill said:

My understanding of the new ( ridiculous ) Laws is:

If you intend to turn left, you should check for cyclists who are behind you, cycling on your nearside, and rather than the cyclist having to slow for the vehicle ahead, to allow it to turn left, the vehicle ahead has to slow down and stop if need be, to allow the cyclist to undertake them, before turning left.

I seem to recall that this also applies if the cyclist is also turning left - So you have to let the cyclist get ahead of you, and then be held up by them, rather than you simply driving off on your way ahead of them, without being delayed by the cyclist.


It's all basically a plan to make driving as miserable as possible, and cause big delays, as vehicles are forced to travel at bicycle speeds, instead of motor vehicle speeds, in the hope that people will ditch their vehicles

All you need to do is what you should always have been doing - making sure that when you change direction you do it without affecting the progress of other road users. I imagine you wouldn’t be happy with someone in lane 2 cutting across you to take a slip road and making you brake hard, so why do you think it’s OK to do the same thing to a cyclist on the inside or a pedestrian on the pavement?

It's also worth thinking what the alternative is if you adopt a dogmatic "they can't pass me on the left because it's one lane" stance... that one lane stance would also mean cyclists always riding in "primary position". With the exception of the JerVina and "I have my silver cycling proficiency certificate" Micky, no-one wants that.

[deja.vu]

Foss62 said:

4rephill said:

My understanding of the new ( ridiculous ) Laws is:

If you intend to turn left, you should check for cyclists who are behind you, cycling on your nearside, and rather than the cyclist having to slow for the vehicle ahead, to allow it to turn left, the vehicle ahead has to slow down and stop if need be, to allow the cyclist to undertake them, before turning left.

I seem to recall that this also applies if the cyclist is also turning left - So you have to let the cyclist get ahead of you, and then be held up by them, rather than you simply driving off on your way ahead of them, without being delayed by the cyclist.


It's all basically a plan to make driving as miserable as possible, and cause big delays, as vehicles are forced to travel at bicycle speeds, instead of motor vehicle speeds, in the hope that people will ditch their vehicles

All you need to do is what you should always have been doing - making sure that when you change direction you do it without affecting the progress of other road users. I imagine you wouldn’t be happy with someone in lane 2 cutting across you to take a slip road and making you brake hard, so why do you think it’s OK to do the same thing to a cyclist on the inside or a pedestrian on the pavement?

A “ridiculous law” which is common place and common sense in many other counties.
They need to make it law due to the large volume of entitled road users like 4rep
:
No mention of road tax or number plates yet

[Don Roque]

'We are the highway code' doesn't have quite the same ring as 'I am the law'.