I thought this was commuting?

On balance I’m probably now against the e-bike hire services like lime / voi etc. Although the idea / principle is a great one, the reality is rather different as the services seem to mostly attract selfish a-holes. As a pedestrian / parent it’s a nightmare in local parks and on pavements as the voi / line bike users just cycle through people on paths at full tilt and expecting everyone to leap out of their way. As a cyclist in local bike lanes, the speed of the e-bikes and unwillingness of riders to slow down around other riders makes for a lot of conflict. As a driver the road craft or lack of it is very frustrating due to like bike users completely ignoring traffic lights, pedestrian crossings or recognising rights of way when turning etc. Then there’s the quite evident use of lime and voi for dodgy purposes - with a good number of local riders at night wearing balaclavas and clearly being involved in drug distribution in local parks. I’ve also gone into co-op and nearly been knocked over by a kid riding out of the store entrance at full tilt on a voi scooter.

@Muddy Ford They don't understand what 'left' means either.

@migex I've been guilty of this previously - that's a simplification. E.g. not all the energy is transferred. I think it's a reasonable proxy, but the collision dynamics are important. There are different risks either way. Motor vehicles are wider, modern ones often with higher fronts so more danger of people going under them, cyclists quieter / often "unexpected", some vehicles may have frontal energy absorbing measures, cyclist quite likely to be injured also etc. I'd guess the main reason that motor vehicles are more dangerous is that it's just much easier for drivers to reach (much) higher speeds. Then exposure factors. Not certain but i guess cyclists may be more likely to interact with pedestrians in the UK and in more informal environments (shared use, pavement cycling). However there must be much greater exposure to motorists (given the fraction of people driving for x time).

You have that the wrong way round, the advanced stop line is, as the name suggests, after the "normal" stop line, not before it. As for the legality of crossing the motor vehicle stop line on amber, that is only legal if the driver is already over the stop line when the light changes or is so close to it that to stop would potentially cause an accident, otherwise it is mandatory to stop, HC 175 "You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision." Drivers can be, and sometimes (though not nearly often enough) have been, given fines and points for driving without due care and attention for deliberately accelerating when the light turned amber, even though it was not red when they went through the stop line.

@mdavidford I don't know if this is the view of the poster but I believe those in the "vehicular cycling" camp would incline to that view.

@mdavidford Wait - is that suggesting we need to take into account whether the *amber* was ... established?

GB News is a far-right fake news outlet run by racists, nationalists, homophobes and morons and they generally invite as guests dribbling knuckle-draggers incapable of forming a coherent sentence let alone a coherent argument, their only "virtue" being the ability to spew hatred against "the left", the left in their view being actually the majority of decent, morally and socially responsible law-abiding citizens who don't agree with their promotion of bile, hatred, misinformation and lies calculated to forment division, mistrust and violence to assist the interests of their billionaire, often foreign, backers. Stone the crows though Nige, even they have some standards.

The rule is incorrect by omission as it should in fact say "You must obey all applicable traffic signs". If there are signs mandating lower speed or lane allocations for HGVs, they don't apply to cars, for example. Speed limits do not apply to cyclists and therefore the signs also do not apply to them. Just for interest, can you cite the last time a person in the UK was killed in a collision with a cyclist in which the cyclist riding in excess of the posted motor vehicle limit was a factor? I can't (please don't cite Hilda Griffiths as she stepped out in front of the cyclist when they were at a distance at which, as mentioned on here numerous times, the cyclist could not have reacted in time to miss her even if they had been riding at the motor vehicle limit or indeed considerably below it). As for "morally they do [need to obey the speed limit]", that's simply nonsense. The law is there to mandate safe speeds for motor vehicles. There isn't a speed limit law for cyclists as it isn't necessary and there's no moral obligation to obey a law that doesn't exist. If you want to get into moral obligations, we all know that a pedestrian is five times more likely to be killed if hit by a car driver at 30mph than at 20mph, aren't car drivers therefore morally obliged to drive at 20mph even in 30mph zones? Why not 10mph then? That would almost eliminate pedestrian fatalities in such areas. The law is there to create a balance between allowing efficient road user progress and safety, when a law doesn't exist or doesn't apply to certain road users the idea that there's a moral obligation to follow it anyway is farcical.

@Ben Graham Thank you.

Uh, no.