It does on the face of it look like it's not much but it is .What’s new other than the “give way to smaller things” rule? I’m getting all my info from a Cov Tel article so likely missed something important
It's best they don't know they have right of way, it really is.Yeah, turning left people are going to slam on with people walking out.
Although, you would like to think people would stop and look both ways as usual when crossing.
Yes cyclist has right of way on a roundabout!And as for roundabouts, I dread to think .
The first example is how it works in Italy - it’s not going to be ‘fun’ for a while for sure.You're on a busy main road turning left and you have to stop before you turn because a pedestrian wants to cross the side road. Rear end waiting to happen .
Same junction you are turning right. You have clear access and begin to turn but then a cyclist bombs along the pavement and wants to cross the side road. You must stop. At this point you've already crossed the carriageway so you're blocking the oncoming traffic.
The list goes on. It's a disaster.
I always thought this was the case anywayYeah, turning left people are going to slam on with people walking out.
Although, you would like to think people would stop and look both ways as usual when crossing.
Yes but now if you hit them it’s your fault - the phone stoned youth who don’t look around their screens will be the first to go !I always thought this was the case anyway
This is a disaster waiting to happen - cyclists still do not require - using a cycle lane if one is available , insurance , a helmet or road tax - the carnage will continue and our insurance premiums will be going up further - not bias but an expensive interaction with a drunk cyclist at fault cost genuine insurance payers a lot of money
Correct - emission tax in which case a bicycle should be zero ! however it slipped out - referring to third party insuranceNobody pays road tax
The point is to discourage people travelling by car where possible. Cycling should be encouraged as it not only is emission free but has a secondary benefit down the line of people putting less pressure on the NHS. Bullshit like insurance for cyclists is something that will unnecesarily put people off buying a bike and using that as their main method of transport. Cars need to be insured because the accidents they cause result in thousands of pounds of damage wheras bikes do not.
I say this as both a driver and a cyclist, car drivers need to stop acting as if they own the road and drive with a little more consideration.
The point is to discourage people travelling by car where possible. Cycling should be encouraged as it not only is emission free but has a secondary benefit down the line of people putting less pressure on the NHS. Bullshit like insurance for cyclists is something that will unnecesarily put people off buying a bike and using that as their main method of transport. Cars need to be insured because the accidents they cause result in thousands of pounds of damage wheras bikes do not.
I say this as both a driver and a cyclist, car drivers need to stop acting as if they own the road and drive with a little more consideration.
All of these complaints about cyclists, they result in what? them falling off the bike, a coming together that results in a sorry and get on with your day?
The massive machine that kills loads of people is rightly the one put under harsher regulations.
I know I'm being flippant and cyclists can be a danger but nowhere near the same extent of cars. 99% of pedestrian deaths are caused by cars.What happens when they hit the massive machine that kills loads of people because they're not paying proper attention?
Of course the car should have more stringent safety requirements and testing. That doesn't mean that the others should be given the impression they can do as they please because it'll be the drivers fault. You should be responsible for your own actions.
Any driver doing so dangerously or negligently should have the book thrown at them, followed by the bookshelf and then the library brick by brick, but if a careful driver is made responsible for others who are themselves negligent then that's asking for trouble.
As for the thing about cyclistsetc having a coming together I won't ride a bike on the roads cos it's a terrifying experience, but I'm not supposed to ride it on the pavement. My take is that if you have a collision between a bike and a car or a bike and a pedestrian then physics tells you there'll be less force in the collision with the pedestrian than the car and so less likely to result in serious injury. So why in't that the expected norm?
I have heard incidents of pedestrians being killed by cyclists on the pavements (tend to be elderly and frail but that doesn't make it OK) but IMO if there isn't a dedicated cycle lane then surely it should be dependent on the speed of the cyclist? I don't tend to ride that quickly so IMO am more of a danger on the road than on the pavement. Someone belting along at 20mph should be on the road. And those that cycle on the road should have to pass a much more stringent test than cycling proficiency to do so.
What happens when they hit the massive machine that kills loads of people because they're not paying proper attention?
Of course the car should have more stringent safety requirements and testing. That doesn't mean that the others should be given the impression they can do as they please because it'll be the drivers fault. You should be responsible for your own actions.
Any driver doing so dangerously or negligently should have the book thrown at them, followed by the bookshelf and then the library brick by brick, but if a careful driver is made responsible for others who are themselves negligent then that's asking for trouble.
As for the thing about cyclistsetc having a coming together I won't ride a bike on the roads cos it's a terrifying experience, but I'm not supposed to ride it on the pavement. My take is that if you have a collision between a bike and a car or a bike and a pedestrian then physics tells you there'll be less force in the collision with the pedestrian than the car and so less likely to result in serious injury. So why in't that the expected norm?
I have heard incidents of pedestrians being killed by cyclists on the pavements (tend to be elderly and frail but that doesn't make it OK) but IMO if there isn't a dedicated cycle lane then surely it should be dependent on the speed of the cyclist? I don't tend to ride that quickly so IMO am more of a danger on the road than on the pavement. Someone belting along at 20mph should be on the road. And those that cycle on the road should have to pass a much more stringent test than cycling proficiency to do so.
I know I'm being flippant and cyclists can be a danger but nowhere near the same extent of cars. 99% of pedestrian deaths are caused by cars.
You're right about cycle lanes and I side with jhfc here in that if there isn't enough room for a cycle lane then it should be the trafic that makes way, a cycle lane introduced and cars diverted.
I agree 100% about how dangerous cars can be, especially with those that do treat the roads as if they own them. But that doesn't mean that everytime someone gets hit it's the motorist's fault. I think part of it may go back to when I was kid. I've always looked in every single direction before and during crossing to ensure i'm safe, but a friend of my had absolutely no road sense. We used to play football in the street and occasionally the ball would go out onto the slightly busier main road. Everyone would look before crossing apart from this lad who would just run out into the road. Thankfully it wasn't a busy road but once he ran out and a car was coming and I still don't know how they stopped in time. Driver must have damn near had a heart attack but this lad just kept running to get the ball, oblivious to the fact he nearly just got himself killed. Even years later he would happily walk out into the road if he wanted to cross and didn't give a shit what was going on around him. Seemed to think it would be the driver's fault so therefore he didn't have to care. It's that kind of person who may take a rule like that and interpret it the same way - they don't need to pay attention because it's not their fault/responsibility. Tht's why it's dangerous.
All of these complaints about cyclists, they result in what? them falling off the bike, a coming together that results in a sorry and get on with your day?
The massive machine that kills loads of people is rightly the one put under harsher regulations.
Everyone should have to do a year on a motorbike before being able to drive a car.
The constant threat of death translates very well into being aware of your surroundings whilst driving.
Nobody diesWhat happens when a cyclist causes damage to a car?
Nobody dies
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?