Highway code changes for cyclists and I'm concerned
Discussion
https://news.sky.com/story/highway-code-revised-cy...
OK so the muppets running the country in London with their weekly cheese and wine parties want to change the law to include allowing cyclists to cycle two abreast and its bad enough they are often seen cycling through the centre of the road. This might work in London where there are no bends in the road with trees blocking one's view however I live in the countryside and you can't see much beyond a bend. My concern is that whilst cars are doing 60mph and the average cyclist is doing 15-20 they will probably get run over when a car rolls up behind them at much higher speed with possible oncoming road users taking up the room on the other side of the road. Would the driver be up for dangerous driving if they hit the cyclist from the rear in that circumstance?
OK so the muppets running the country in London with their weekly cheese and wine parties want to change the law to include allowing cyclists to cycle two abreast and its bad enough they are often seen cycling through the centre of the road. This might work in London where there are no bends in the road with trees blocking one's view however I live in the countryside and you can't see much beyond a bend. My concern is that whilst cars are doing 60mph and the average cyclist is doing 15-20 they will probably get run over when a car rolls up behind them at much higher speed with possible oncoming road users taking up the room on the other side of the road. Would the driver be up for dangerous driving if they hit the cyclist from the rear in that circumstance?
Edited by IAmTheWalrus on Saturday 22 January 11:42
I don’t see the problem with it? Two abreast has always been legal. Giving as much space as possible is also something I do when ever I overtake a cyclist. Literally a non issue this, will only be a problem to those that treat vulnerable road users like crap already. And if you can’t see around a corner at 60 then you probably should not be flying around said corner at that speed. Could be horse, a broken down car or a motorcyclist around the same corner. And yes you’d be at fault.
IAmTheWalrus said:
https://news.sky.com/story/highway-code-revised-cy...
OK so the muppets running the country in London with their weekly cheese and wine parties want to change the law to include allowing cyclists to cycle two abreast and its bad enough they are often seen cycling through the centre of the road. This might work for in London where there are now bends in the road with trees blocking one's view however I live in the countryside and you can't see much beyond a bend. My concern is that whilst cars are doing 60mph and the average cyclist is doing 15-20 they'll will probably get run over when a car rolls up behind them at much higher speed with the possible oncoming taking up the room on the other side of the road. Would the driver be up for dangerous driving if they hit the cyclist from the rear in that circumstance?
I'm out if breath after reading this. OK so the muppets running the country in London with their weekly cheese and wine parties want to change the law to include allowing cyclists to cycle two abreast and its bad enough they are often seen cycling through the centre of the road. This might work for in London where there are now bends in the road with trees blocking one's view however I live in the countryside and you can't see much beyond a bend. My concern is that whilst cars are doing 60mph and the average cyclist is doing 15-20 they'll will probably get run over when a car rolls up behind them at much higher speed with the possible oncoming taking up the room on the other side of the road. Would the driver be up for dangerous driving if they hit the cyclist from the rear in that circumstance?
IAmTheWalrus said:
https://news.sky.com/story/highway-code-revised-cy...
OK so the muppets running the country in London with their weekly cheese and wine parties want to change the law to include allowing cyclists to cycle two abreast and its bad enough they are often seen cycling through the centre of the road. This might work in London where there are no bends in the road with trees blocking one's view however I live in the countryside and you can't see much beyond a bend. My concern is that whilst cars are doing 60mph and the average cyclist is doing 15-20 they will probably get run over when a car rolls up behind them at much higher speed with possible oncoming road users taking up the room on the other side of the road. Would the driver be up for dangerous driving if they hit the cyclist from the rear in that circumstance?
Would the car driver be any less liable if it had been a milk float doing 15-20mph or even stationary whilst delivering?OK so the muppets running the country in London with their weekly cheese and wine parties want to change the law to include allowing cyclists to cycle two abreast and its bad enough they are often seen cycling through the centre of the road. This might work in London where there are no bends in the road with trees blocking one's view however I live in the countryside and you can't see much beyond a bend. My concern is that whilst cars are doing 60mph and the average cyclist is doing 15-20 they will probably get run over when a car rolls up behind them at much higher speed with possible oncoming road users taking up the room on the other side of the road. Would the driver be up for dangerous driving if they hit the cyclist from the rear in that circumstance?
Edited by IAmTheWalrus on Saturday 22 January 11:42
Drive so you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so) on your side of the road, when on suitable 2 way roads.
Half the distance when on single track or narrower roads.
vonhosen said:
Would the car driver be any less liable if it had been a milk float doing 15-20mph or even stationary whilst delivering?
Drive so you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so) on your side of the road, when on suitable 2 way roads.
Half the distance when on single track or narrower roads.
Eh? Was that supposed to say 'twice the distance' or have I misunderstood?Drive so you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so) on your side of the road, when on suitable 2 way roads.
Half the distance when on single track or narrower roads.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Most cyclists do pay VED, and insure and MOT vehicles. Some of them multiple vehicles.As others have said, it is your responsibility NOT to crash into things ahead of you, and if that means slowing down for unsighted corners in case there is a broken down car, tree across the road, giant pothole etc, it is on you to do so, and be accountable for what happens if you don't.
One of the core principles of roadraft, if anyone still reads/practices that. Be able to stop/take evasive action* within the distance you can see.
*ok, I added the evasive action bit.
Edited by HiAsAKite on Saturday 22 January 12:40
IAmTheWalrus said:
I like the way people on this thread are saying don't drive so fast if you can't see around the corner, do you do 15-20mph when your up a winding country lane then because I've never seen that.
Yes.Maybe you could explain why you'd go round a blind bend faster than the speed that you can stop in, when you have no idea what is round that bend.
king sGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff