"The must get in front is just irresistible": Cyclist overtaken by driver who gets to sit in traffic two seconds sooner; He's back... Tadej Pogačar returns to Strava with 30km/h mountain epic; Dan Walker talks about "hairy" crash + more on the live blog

A normal day out then?

Haven't had a stand up row with someone for a while - wrong side of the road lady was perfectly reasonable.

These events are more glaring when do many drivers are getting better at handling cyclists.

Oh, I forgot the Freelander driver who tried to overtake me coming up to a junction near Chipping Camden, failed to complete and I was looking down at his wing (not mirror) as it got closer and closer. I glared with one of those "Do you think I'm going to magic out of the way?" looks, did some 1.5m hand signalling and set off left from the junction - with him still parked alongside -, adding on a bit of pointing at my camera, he then deliberately close passed me into a blind bend. As Brooksby says, drivers don't like being criticised, even when they know they are in the wrong.

I find the best way to wind up a driver is simply quote the Highway Code at them.

Cycloid wrote:

I find the best way to wind up a driver is simply quote the Highway Code at them.

 

The same works equally well for winding up cyclists. Specifically rule 59. Works a treat.

I don't know any cyclist that has a problem with rule 59.

Cycloid wrote:

I don't know any cyclist that has a problem with rule 59.

I can think of a few on here, particularly the bit where cyclists should wear helmets.

Is it rule 59 which says?

Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.

Cycloid wrote:

Is it rule 59 which says?

Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.

That's the one. Though it's the bit that says "You should wear a cycle helmet" that seems to get people's backs up round here.

The Dutch do not wear plastic hats - they remove the risk - cars.

Pedantry for the pedants' pedant:

The Dutch mostly do not wear plastic hats - they massively improve the convenience and feeling of safety when cycling - they remove the risk from interaction with other modes on roads above a certain speed limit or with a certain volume of vehicles and manage interactions between modes where necessary by engineering.  They've been so successful that now falls and crashes by cyclists not involving anyone else are the main contributor to the injury stats despite what appears to be a recent growth in casualties from "SUVs" and much larger cars.

swldxer wrote:

The Dutch do not wear plastic hats - they remove the risk - cars.

The relevance of the Dutch being...?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

The same works equally well for winding up cyclists. Specifically rule 59. Works a treat.

Why would anybody get wound up by Rule 59? It's a "should" not a "must", purely advisory. People might get annoyed by other people quoting it as if it is compulsory (as so many of our not-lamented now-banned trolls such as Nigel, Martin, Socrapi etc used to) in order deliberately to wind people up, but that's not getting wound up by the rule, it's getting wound up by people being deliberately and stupidly provocative and disingenuous.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

The same works equally well for winding up cyclists. Specifically rule 59. Works a treat.

Why would anybody get wound up by Rule 59? It's a "should" not a "must", purely advisory. People might get annoyed by other people quoting it as if it is compulsory (as so many of our not-lamented now-banned trolls such as Nigel, Martin, Socrapi etc used to) in order deliberately to wind people up, but that's not getting wound up by the rule, it's getting wound up by people being deliberately and stupidly provocative and disingenuous.

Purely advisory? Like giving 1.5m when overtaking you mean (also a 'should'). I don't think you understand what 'should' means in the context of the highway code.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Purely advisory? Like giving 1.5m when overtaking you mean (also a 'should'). I don't think you understand what 'should' means in the context of the highway code.

Well now, let's take a look at the highway code for 2023. What's this on page 4?

Quote:

rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Purely advisory? Like giving 1.5m when overtaking you mean (also a 'should'). I don't think you understand what 'should' means in the context of the highway code.

Well now, let's take a look at the highway code for 2023. What's this on page 4?

Quote:

rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

 

What version is that? The highway code online says no such thing as far as I can find.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

What version is that? The highway code online says no such thing as far as I can find. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/

And it's me who doesn't understand? Go to the link that you have provided, click on the second section "Wording of the Highway Code" and look at the bottom of the second paragraph.

Ah yes that bit after "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. "

I must admit Rendel I had no idea you were so in favour of car drivers treating rules about safely overtaking as 'merely advisory'.

I do apologise though, as you are correct that the wording you quoted is present. It would be remiss of me to expect you to apologise for your blatant errors and mistruths if I didn't do the same when I err.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Ah yes that bit after "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. " I must admit Rendel I had no idea you were so in favour of car drivers treating rules about safely overtaking as 'merely advisory'.

I'm not in the least in favour of 1.5 m being advisory, it should be compulsory, but the fact is that it is only advisory and, as you have shown with your own link which you apparently couldn't understand, it is advisory because it is a "should" not a "must". In exactly the same way as wearing a helmet is advisory. You have literally proven this with your own link, even though you claimed that it did not include the words which I quoted.

ETA adding further material and insults to a comment after somebody has responded to it without making clear that you have added to it is a rather cheap trick, don't you think?

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Ah yes that bit after "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. " I must admit Rendel I had no idea you were so in favour of car drivers treating rules about safely overtaking as 'merely advisory'.

I'm not in the least in favour of 1.5 m being advisory, it should be compulsory, but the fact is that it is only advisory and, as you have shown with your own link which you apparently couldn't understand, it is advisory because it is a "should" not a "must". In exactly the same way as wearing a helmet is advisory. You have literally proven this with your own link, even though you claimed that it did not include the words which I quoted.

ETA adding further material and insults to a comment after somebody has responded to it without making clear that you have added to it is a rather cheap trick, don't you think?

I edited my comment to include my apology before you responded. If you typed quicker you might be able to keep up.

Typing with one hand and half a brain slows you down a bit I expect.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Typing with one hand and half a brain slows you down a bit I expect.

Ah, the standard STFD methodology, state something that is blatantly wrong, when challenged continue to argue about it until categorically proved wrong by the material you provided yourself and so then resort to insults. Rather sad really. Have a lovely day xx

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Typing with one hand and half a brain slows you down a bit I expect.

Ah, the standard STFD methodology, state something that is blatantly wrong, when challenged continue to argue about it until categorically proved wrong by the material you provided yourself and so then resort to insults. Rather sad really. Have a lovely day xx

I apologized for my error. I do make them. You do too - you just refuse to acknowledge them.

What was the point that you were trying to make by the way? That cyclists don't get wound up when you mention rule 59? Bravo on that one.

Highway Code Rule 59 is unusual

You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.

It says Cyclists Should wear a helmet then immediately waters down this advice to the point of almost negating it. Well informed cyclists will be aware of some of the reasons for doing this.

Other rules in the HWC Rules for Cyclists which to my mind are less than forthright are:-
Rule 59 (again) 
Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing can help other road users to see you in daylight and poor light, while reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) can increase your visibility in the dark.
Interestingly the equivalent rule for Pedestrians (Rule 3 Help Other Road Users to See you) is much more direct.
Rule 61 (Cycle Routes ..) While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.

I have just spent a good hour re-reading the HWC and have found no watering down in the Rules for all Road users.
For example it does not say "You should give cyclists 1.5 metres space when overtkaing. But if the road is narrow or you are in a hurry you can get away with much less".

The "conradictory rules" are confined to cyclists and seem to refer to situations where Victim Blaming could be used agianst cyclists (either in court or by insurance companies) to mitigate bad driving behaviour.

Cycloid wrote:

For example it does not say "You should give cyclists 1.5 metres space when overtkaing. But if the road is narrow or you are in a hurry you can get away with much less".

Cheshire Police obviously believe that it does, as I have it in writing that I could not have expected the driver to sit behind me on a narrow country lane until a safe place to overtake presented itself. It then goes on to state that I may have aggravated the driver by 'swerving towards the rear of his vehicle'. This 'swerving' was necessary as the driver stopped in front of me, presumably not to apologise for for the poor display of overtaking, so I thought I'd be best to steer around  him and carry on my journey. Strangely enough, when he overtook me the second time, it was textbook.

I also live in Cheshire and amy dealings with Cheshire Police have been variable.
I have noticed the "Reality Check" that often comes with a dodgey overtake. A driver attempts an overtake approaching a blind bend on a country lane, meets an oncoming car and aborts the manoeuvre, giving me a bit of a scare. It seems that the driver then realises that there could be other vehicles coming around the bends and drops into ultra cautious mode.

Most don't believe you. They have the Drivists' HWC in their head and anything you quote that doesn't fit their idea of what the HWC should say is rejected.

For example, my drivist friend didn't believe me when I pointed out that 3 abreast is not explicitly against the HWC as an example - he was arguing that the HWC said that the rider off the front was against the rules as we must stick together, and I wasn't allowed to overtake other members of my ride to change positions according to his HWC.

The thing with the HWC is that you can check the "your version" vs the "Official Version" with a mobile phone which closes down the argument but makes the driver even angrier.