You have probably heard how everyone else feels about the Highway Code changes coming into force in a few days — but what do cyclists think?
FDJ pro Jake Stewart, who is a regular on the lanes of the Peak District, this weekend proclaimed “cycling in the UK is doomed. Society is broken” after reading some thoughts from motorists.
> Highway Code changes: “Cycling in the UK is doomed,” says pro
But what about you or I? The ordinary UK-based cyclist who also deals with junctions, roundabouts and other road users on a daily basis. How do we feel about the changes?
There have been plenty of news stories about the Highway Code changes on road.cc over the past few days, so we thought we would round-up some of your thoughts to balance out the negativity…
mancrider was pleasantly surprised by the BBC Breakfast show coverage yesterday: “I particularly liked the very reasonable comments made by Edmund King (President of the AA) – hopefully he is an individual motorists may respect and listen to.
> Press misrepresents Highway Code changes – just days before they come into force
“Everything focused on these changes being common sense made official, that they we being made to ensure everyone looks after the more vulnerable (not just making change for cyclists, which I know can send the conversation in unfortunate directions), and just generally being more kind to each other on the roads.”
One common theme was questions about the ‘Dutch Reach’, the technique of opening your car door to better see vulnerable road users approaching. You can expect to hear more from us in the coming days on that particular point.
Richard Baruch, and others, asked why the Department for Transport’s publicity campaign is only set to begin in mid-February?
On the issue of provocative TV interviews and social media debate, Aidan R concluded: “It really is depressing that sensible and nuanced changes to the Highway Code have been hijacked by some to sow division.”
While Velophaart_95 added: “If you’re a good and competent driver, any changes shouldn’t cause any issues. The only people who it will affect are those who probably need more training and education.”
The discussion has continued on Facebook, where Stan Kollar replied to Mr Loophole’s comments about cyclists and pedestrians being entitled: “Shocking really, a vulnerable group of actual human beings to finally have some legislative support behind them to stop them being killed on the regular. The audacity!”
Steve Brill said: “Anything that makes it safer for us cyclists (and horse riders) can only be a good thing. Motorists’ aggression and impatience towards those on two wheels has to be changed. Surely not killing a cyclist must come before saving 10 seconds on your car journey?”
Graham Snook commented: “The number of drivers going apoplectic about this and the rest of the rule changes is both worrying and funny as hell. All the Highway Code is asking, is for people to drive with more consideration, yet it’s like many drivers feel put out because it means they will have to operate their vehicle in a safe manner, and that’s just not fair.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
73 thoughts on ““If you’re a competent driver it shouldn’t cause any issues”: Cyclists react to Highway Code change outrage”
My only complaint about the
My only complaint about the new Highway Code is Rule 66 now includes the phrase riders should consider “riding in single file or stopping” if a vehicle wishes to overtake.
The stopping bit was added at the last revision by the DfT.
This bit will be used by the motor lobby to argue cyclists should just get out of the way by getting off the road.
CyclingUK also didn’t like this amendment which went against their suggested wording.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/new-highway-code-and-hierarchy
But other than that, overall the changes are very welcome.
quote=sean1]
Thanks. I’d somehow missed the “or stopping” part. Yes, that will doubtless be misinterpreted by some.
Yes, it’s very odd. The
Yes, it’s very odd. The stopping bit wasn’t in DfT’s original proposal, nor was it in Cycling UK’s proposal, parts of which appear in the final wording. (Incidentally, Cycling UK endorsed DfT’s original proposal on rule 66, but then took on board comments from their members and sought amendments.)
On the bright side, it’s worth noting that Rule 66 is for cyclists. The companion rule for drivers doesn’t mention that cyclists should get out of the way, so it’s clearly cyclist’s choice, not driver’s right:
New Rule 213 (extract):
On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, at road junctions and in
slower-moving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane,
rather than towards the side of the road. It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen.
Yes Rule 213 is well written.
Yes Rule 213 is well written. Just a shame about rule 66 and the strange text addition.
sean1 wrote:
It does use the words “should consider”.
So, if you , as a single rider or in a group do not consider it to be safe to single up (likely that the following vehicle will try to perform a manouver that is likely to put you at risk), or consider it safe to stop (no where to stop without causeing an obstruction; I’d suggest that a stationary cyclist with one foot on the floor poses a greater obstruction than a moving one) – then you don’t have to single up or stop.
Though to be fair this is
Though to be fair this is something that I do and am sure others on the forum do of their own volition as it is simply good road craft. A number of my loops have resulted me doing this to receive a wave or flash of hazard lights.
The wording regarding ‘stopping’ is concerning and possibly an action demanded by motorists when the occasion arises. Though it does say should and when you feel it is safe. That would be my defence when an irate motorist gets torn into me. Whether they calm down enough to listen to reason is another issue altogether.
its something I do as a lone
its something I do as a lone rider more because Id rather have the car with the frustrated driver infront of me, than behind me where I cant see them properly and what they are doing next, knowing theyll inevitably pick a really bad spot to try and force their way past if just left there, than out of some moral duty on my part to let faster vehicles past.
Though I rarely get thanked even when I let them by,and take my reward as a simple well at least I dont have to put up with them behind me anymore.
So Id argue Im already complying with the way the words are written in the HC, but group rides are probably more awkward, be interesting to see if clubs change their advice on rides or if its just carry on as normal, though most I dont think ride down the kinds of single track roads I do on their cafe runs
Awavey wrote:
I think the wording “consider going to single file if safe to do so” (paraphrased, haven’t got the copy to hand at the mo) doesn’t require you to do it in all circumstances.
I can’t imagine a situation where it is possible to safely single out a group of say 12 in the amount of time to make a difference to an impatient motrist, or how you would actually do it, before even considering teh practice required to choreograph that on demand
Not that incompetent drivers will be able to comprehend that….
I will sometimes stop out of
I will sometimes stop out of the way if, for example, I’ve been followed considerately by a driver for some time and there is really nowhere to overtake safely. Particularly HGVs on hills. They usually appreciate it, and I’d rather they continued on their way thinking that cyclists are lovely people.
It is a more general issue
It is a more general issue than cyclists vs cars. We seem to have a small minority of belligerent members of society who have decided that their opinions trump other people’s safety or well-being.
On the road I see a growing division between courteous drivers and those who like to bully and intimidate and will aggressively attack those who dare to complain of their behaviour.
I would say the problem drivers number about 1% of road users – so we can guarantee that we will have a negative encounter. Unfortunately the number of people who talk the talk are a lot higher, which entitles the 1%.
At the same time, there are probably 1% of problem cyclists – yet it is considered acceptable to apply the behaviour of that 1% to all cyclists. Oddly, the 1% of drivers who drive recklessly (regardless of cyclists) aren’t considered to be representative of drivers as a whole.
“If you’re a competent driver
“If you’re a competent driver it shouldn’t cause any issues”.
But as we know, most drivers are “in” ?
Sadly, today’s society is
Sadly, today’s society is full of entitled people. People learn to drive, pass their test then forget everything they have learnt. Many drivers use their vehicles as a weapon to intimidate other road users. If you berate them for driving dangerously, using their phone etc, all you get is a mouthful of abuse.
If you say anything to anyone who walks into you because they are staring at their phone, you usually get a mouthful of abuse.
If you say anything to someone who has a dog either out of control off the lead, or at the end of a 20ft invisible lead, you get a mouthful of abuse.
People are horrible these days, although…..
I’ve just returned to cycling after a few months off the bike due to major surgery. I have been pleasently surprised that I seem to be getting passed with much more room than usual, also people appear to be patiently waiting behind me until it is safe to pass, and they are passing me with much more room than I am used to. It can’t last, surely?
I’ve actually noticed a
I’ve actually noticed a gradual increase in good passes. There are still a number who ruin it for you as well. I’ve also noticed when walking there’s a growing number of motorists who actually stop when you get kerbside and glance round to check if clear.
biker phil wrote:
Exactly this … just one of the many reasons that a driving licence should need to be renewed every 5 or 10 years with, as bare minimum, a theory test to make sure they are still up to date with the HC.
What disturbed me more than anything else in this whole debate was the 4% of drivers who responded to a poll about the new rules (AA?) to say that not only did they not know about them, they had no intention of reading them now that they did.
Those people should have their licences revoked because they clearly cannot be trusted to drive responsibly.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
So we are going to triple the number of driving examiners we employ? to retest everyone every 10 years?
wycombewheeler wrote:
For my work I have to do annual online refreshers to make sure I’m up to speed with the latest rules and issues in my industry. Continuing development is compulsory for me to remain chartered. That wouldn’t be hard at all to organise for drivers.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Why not? And the downsides are…?
The main question is – “is the current system doing what we want it to” e.g. delivering competent, safe drivers who stay safe and competent? I think the second part needs addressing.
Yes, this would be a huge change. But a) we’re in the UK – not even Brexit happened overnight and this would inevitably a “takes years to get going” change. b) We have had similar kinds of changes before e.g. when we required cars to have a MOT. Now with that you could get garages to do the extra work. (Which of course could open up “poacher and gamekeeper” situations…) However by the same logic you could imagine assigning retests – or a certain proportion of all tests – to e.g. additionally qualified driving instructors rather than dedicated examiners. (I’m ignorant here – I don’t know if some instructors also do testing and I’ve not read through [and won’t bother] what actual driving testers need to cover).
I have a sinister lycrist agenda though! I hope that both the number of motor vehicle journeys and the “need” to become a driver will fall. (Via better provision for other modes, chiefly cycling / wheeling and walking.) So in my utopia there would be less than the current demand for examiners (and instructors) for the initial test. So we would not need triple (or other “large multiple”) of the current number anyway.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Is that such a bad idea? It could be introduced gradually at the top and bottom ends of the age limit and meet in the middle at 40-50. If introduced gradually over 10 years or so there would be lots of stastistics to see if its influening incident rates.
Imo it’s an idea that doesnt
Imo it’s an idea that doesnt deliver what its proponents believe, like an MOT it only validates you pass on that day, the rest of the time you are free to revert to non passing standard. Plus there are also an increasing number of people who dont even think needing to pass in the first place is a requirement anymore you can see that just by how many non licensed drivers the police encounter in traffic stops.
And the issue isnt people passing a test, or not having the knowledge to pass a test, you should be held to a passing standard by the proper enforcement of traffic laws every time you drive and that’s a police numbers budget priority conversation not a how many tests do we force people to take debate.
Awavey wrote:
I agree – we need to increase traffic law enforcement first and the stupid/careless/aggressive drivers will thus be provided an incentive to learn how to drive better. Most drivers do want to drive safely and carefully, so there’s little to be gained by putting them through stressful exams especially if the focus is on getting word perfect descriptions of highway signs.
Agree in that “continous
Agree in that “continous feedback” is required. There are probably a (very?) small minority who need serious measures to get off the road. But they’ll pop up in any sphere of life (cf “crime”). For most “what others are doing”, “what’s culturally acceptable” and “what will obviously cause me trouble” are major heuristics. So I do think training and reminders have some role – although enforcement’s needed.
It’s not either / or though. Indeed I think this only works (fairly) if multiple strands come together: better and more effective enforcement (negative feedback), regular “refreshers” / retests (education), better road design which guides behaviour rather than “sign it better” (feedback), road law / rules which also guide people *, infrastructure which is more convenient and safer for non-motorists (so less driving), other “public transport” which is actually a useful alternative to driving.
* Where to start with that? Licence is not a “right”, driving off after an accident / not declaring who’s the driver is a more serious matter, driving uninsured / while disqualified merits measures that will actually stop you doing so (at least for a period), pavement parking is more effectively addressed, reverse the presumption you can park anywhere unless it says you can’t etc.
Awavey wrote:
That’s true … but equally true of other contexts where ongoing proof of competence is required.
An online theory test taken and passed every 5/10 years would as a bare minimum place a responsibility on drivers to keep up to date with what the highway code says. And not require a massive increase in examiners.
I passed my driving test in 1987 (before there even was a theory test) and at no point have I been required to demonstrate that I have even read the highway code barring 5 minutes of questions at the end of the test.
For an activity that has the potential to end the lives of others, I find that unacceptable.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
So true.
Of course when you started drving there were still people on the roads with a licence who had never taken a test. (acquired licence before 1934) I suspect there are close to zero now.
Close to zero…if you add
Close to zero…if you add some extra noughts and put a 1 in front, sure, but they dont like to publicise the problem, so the numbers are always sketchy and mix disqualified with never had a license.
But its estimated there are between 500,000 to 1million unlicensed drivers on UK roads, & there may even be evidence the written part of the test, for socio-economic reasons, has contrbuted to increasing that figure.
Awavey wrote:
I think the ‘close to zero’ comment relates to those who started driving, paying their local authority for an annual licence, prior to 1934. The youngest of those will be 105 years old on 31st March this year.
Interestingly, it wasn’t until 1976 that motorists had a licence that didn’t need renewing on a regular basis. It was annual till 1957, then 3-yearly till 1976.
Wouldn’t it be good to have a 5-yearly requirement to renew your licence, including an in-person trip to the Post Office where the transaction includes a check that your licence photo bears a resemblence to you (the clerk being able to view the larger-format file copy on screen), and asking some randomised theory questions to check understanding of the HC (or overseeing a tablet-based quiz to the same effect). There would be overheads, but these could be borne by the driver paying a fee to cover the reasonable administrative costs of ensuring that licensed drivers have a clue about their duties.
I don’t hold with the idea that AVs take away the driver’s responsibility and place it on the manufacturer, because there are too many variables that should be the responsibility of the person who is there, not of a programmer who doesn’t even work for the company any more. Loophole Nick, the dunce of road safety and doyen of irresponsible drivists, would have a field day with suggesting that his client never knew the car had handed responsibility back to the driver, and you can’t prove the ‘auto-pilot off’ chime was audible in the
chill loungedriver’s seat at the time.Therefore, since drivers should remain responsible, it’s time to tie in that responsibility with a licence that;s fitter for purpose, and a log-in using your licence as a key to the car, so who was driving and how was recorded. Like pilots.
Photo driving licences are
Photo driving licences are renewed every 10 years or every time you move, the photo is cross checked against the one held for your passport, if you dont have a passport you have no option but to present yourself at a post office to renew a driving licence.
You have post offices where
You have post offices where you live ?!
That can renew driving
That can renew driving licences,no, barely any of those across the whole county, and there arent many of the ones left that just sell stamps either 🙁
Awavey wrote:
i was refering to drivers with a license from the time before tests were a thing, not unlicensed drivers.
Seems to me there is a technological response to that now, with chip and pin licenses and all new cars needing a license inserted before driving.
Apolgies my mistake then
Apolgies my mistake then
wycombewheeler wrote:
I think there would also have been some who avoided the test because they got their licence during the war. But that doesn’t change your point.
I used to work with a guy,who
I used to work with a guy,who’d only be in his mid 80s now, who was given a license in the RAF during his National service, just so he could drive their trucks off base. At least that’s what he used to tell us, I’ve no reason to disbelieve him.
My dad gained his license in
My dad gained his license in 1956 during the Suez Crisis when tests were suspended that year. Never knew this until mum told me.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
If everyone is aware of the impact of saying just retest everyone regulalry, then fine.
Although I would suggest the vast majority of the dangerous drivers out there know how they should drive, they just prioritise their perception of time saving and convenience over following the rules. So what would re testing them prove? On the other hand redoing the theory test when renewing a licence would be no bad thing.
I think there are very few who would be caught out. These would mostly be the ones whose abilities have deteriorated due to some condition, or those that were frankly lucky to pass the test the first time. Those rare few who take the test 15+ times until eventually conditions were perfect for them.
It’s not necessarily about
It’s not necessarily about catching out the out-and-out dangerous drivers directly, though. The aim would be that by improving the general understanding of how you should be driving and other people’s experience of the roads you improve the overall public conversation about road safety, and reduce tolerance towards those who drive badly, reduce the instances of juries letting people off because ‘well it’s not really that much worse than normal’, etc.
One thought would be a
One thought would be a requirement to sit a number of refresher lessons with an approved instructor who would then validate the licence or recommend a retest. If you commit a driving offence within 12 months of a validation then it’s an automatic retest
wycombewheeler wrote:
Why not?
Yes – when?? Can’t come soon
Yes – when?? Can’t come soon enough.
David9694 wrote:
I’d rather all those surplus driving examiners were used in dangerous/careless driving cases, rather than leaving it up to bad drivers to decide what consittutes good driving.
As I’d expect most drivers would be able to pass a practical test, even though their normal driving doesn’t meet that standard.
I’m not so sure. There would
I’m not so sure. There would be lots of minor faults, so a question of how many you can get away with.
The jobs will boost the
The jobs will boost the economy.
Seriously though a theory test won’t triple the examiners surely?
Haitchaitch wrote:
NO, theory tests arenot a problem and probably not a bad idea, and as we must all now renew our licenses every 10 years when the photocards expire, this could be a good chance to ensure drivers are up to date with theory.
triple the examiners would be if everyone needed a practical test every ten years.
The problem is irresponsible
The problem is irresponsible click bait “journalists” working for “newspapers” like the Express selling the idea that cyclists are all going to be cycling down the middle of the road. This is whipping up anger towards cyclists.
rustygecko wrote:
not just tabloids the times too
stonechat wrote:
Strictly speaking, the times is a tabloid.
Tabloid refers to the dimensions of the paper used in printing. The times ceased printing its broadsheet edition in 2004.
Ooh, was forgetting…
WINGMIRRORS
though technically the story
though technically the story was published in the Sunday Times, which is still a broadsheet in size
Awavey wrote:
Touche!
Captain Badger]
Might be a “Berliner”. The old broadsheet was big enough for a duvet cover, if somewhat crinkly.
mike the bike wrote:
What a donut? Greasy, stodgy, no nutritional value, likely to promote diabetes and heart disease….. Hmmmm
I think you’ll still find the
I think you’ll still find the Sunday Times is a broadsheet if you measure it. I believe the Guardian were the only UK national paper,still going in print, to adopt the Berliner format, but only for about a decade till they adopted the tabloid, or compact as they prefer to call it, format instead. Simply because the UK doesnt have many Berliner size printing presses, it has more tabloid & broadsheet presses and it was proving very costly for them to stick with that midi format.
These days I find that about
These days I find that about 80% of drivers behave responsibly and give adequate space when passing. Approx 18% breach the 1.5m gap and about 2% give me the genuine fear when passing. But the group who have most often caused me to crash are pedestrians and pedestrians with dogs. Over the years 4 people have walked out in front of me from behind parked vehicles, sometimes with eyes glued to their smartphones. Worst of all is the dog walkers with those insane extending leads. Only last weekend a woman with her dog caused me to crash when the dog ran out across me with no warning.
My opinion: “All road users need to show respect and consideration for all other road users.”
Where does it say that in the new code?
If this isn’t a rhetorical
If this isn’t a rhetorical question the answer is in the introduction to the Hierarchy of Users and in paragraph 4 of Rule H1
Exactly why the HC is there
Exactly why the HC is there and why it needs more publicity.
Rule 56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
Rules like that show exactly
Rules like that show exactly why people can’t be left to their own devices – the old just use common sense, when it is well known that they don’t.
Motorists complain of ever decreasing speed limits – again they’ll say, apparently reasonably, that people should be allowed to drive to the road conditions, when it is quite clear a substantial minority are incapable of moderating their driving accordingly.
As the headline hints, drive properly and there shouldn’t be a problem, but too many road users are incapable. Many seem to be untrainable – how many drivers risk their lives on 9 points and bemoan their jobs being at risk? Why is driving to the speed limit or below such an impossible challenge for so many?
rDaved wrote:
Pedestrians (AKA normal people including you and me) are at the top of the hierarchy. Yes, we are annoying, and sometimes look at our phones, and walk where we shouldn’t.
And kids! don’t get me started. worst of the lot. messing around, pushing each other, not looking , darting out when you’re not expecting it. Where are the parents, eh? Kids shouldn’t be allowed out unless accompanied , ney shackled, to their parents until thy’re 18.
And they’re everywhere! can’t get away from them. It’s almost like whenever there is a pavement, there’s kids. And sometimes where there’s not. How am I supposed to drive at the speed limit when there might be kids that would fall under my wheels, eh?
But what can you do eh? drive to teh conditions?? There’d be grid lock!!
Isn’t the real problem not
Isn’t the real problem not that motorists have to stop running people over but that these changes suggest cyclists are higher up the hierarchy (that means less culpable, right?) than motorists? But everyone knows that cyclists ride on the pavements – and jump red lights – so they’ve gotta be far more dangerous to pedestrians, right? One nearly killed me the other day!
And they aren’t even taxed or licenced – and if one killed and rode off there’s no way of telling who they were – no number plates, see?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Well I for one can assure all motorists that I only run people over on my moutnainbike – teh road bike wheels just arent built for it
Make life easy for yourself –
Make life easy for yourself – noted TdF fan Dieter Senft has got you (and the pedestrians) covered:
chrisonatrike wrote:
Cool. Is that on Etsy?
Number plates… if they’ve
Number plates… if they’ve been in a collision with a cycle that’s that serious they really expect the cyclist to be in a suitable condition to get up and run off? ?♂️
The Gruniad did a decent
The Gruniad did a decent column this morning which was quite refreshing after being subjected to much of the other media meltdown https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/24/common-myths-about-what-uk-highway-code-changes-will-mean?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Having read lots of
Having read lots of depressing comments on social media about these changes, there are a staggering number of motorists who seem to believe that the Heirarchy of Road users means that in all instances drivers will be liable for any accident involving cyclists.
Typically this manifests with drivers going “I was driving the other night and almost hit a cyclist who was riding at night with no lights on….. these new rules mean that if I hit the cyclist I will be liable”, or “if I hit a cyclist who runs a red light I will be liable”.
Unfortunately they cannot grasp the fact that if the cyclist is breaking the law that the cyclist is the one liable.
TriTaxMan wrote:
It also shows a massive ignorance about the difference between civil and criminal law, and the terms liability and culpability. I’ve noticed a number of eejits banging on about “innocent until proven guilty”( Which in itself suggests they’re no strangers to, or planning on, using their cars to assault other people).
Even when you go through the differences between civil and criminal law with them, and that we already have presumed liability in certain cases, they can’t comprehend it, let alone that the updates regarding hierarchy (at this stage) have no legal weight in the situations they’re manufacturing in their tiny, limited, yet fevered, imaginations.
Edit: although one hopes that the hierarchy will find a back door into being the standard presumed liability, as it will be now (fingers crossed) explicitly part of the ACOP.
Pretty much my experience as
Pretty much my experience as well. I’ve had people ranting that they don’t understand the new rules or how ridiculous they are and it turns out they’ve not even read the proof copy of the proposed changes. They’ve been basing their knowledge on all the falsehoods published by various papers. Even when you correct them you’re met with silence or a rant of but but but!
They seem to have convinced themselves that the HC has been completely it’s unreal.
Are you suffering from car
Are you suffering from car culture? Take our ten point quiz to find out.
I’ve not succeeded in landing too many punches on Local FB today. Car culture takes hold of people so comprehensively that every avenue to suggesting that cars might be a bit of a problem is blocked-off. It gives its sufferers an answer to everything, an ability to alight on the minor and ignore the gross, or an ability to shut off anything they just don’t want to hear.
In the worst cases, you have in the HC a rule book saying “please try to be careful” with some pretty abject SM responses that I hope police or lawyers are resourceful enough to bring up when the time comes.
The sense of grievance from paying c£200 annual VED is transferred to cyclists before you can say ‘Tesla’ – all to do with being different, I know.
Today, it was “what if 150 school children all come out on bikes?” Gosh, whatever will you do? I didn’t get on to kids waking to school or playing in the street today.
Certain things are parroted endlessly – cyclists contribute nothing (my monthly PAYE, anyone?), pavements, RLJ, and 3/4 abreast (“for miles” it was today).
If you lie and exaggerate to yourself enough that something has befallen you, always does, always will, you start to believe your own hype. A bad encounter with a cyclist months ago plays now as “I don’t like cyclists”.
You get a bit of “well I’m going to give up driving then” – not sure what if anything that is meant to elicit: “brilliant idea” I say, and they sound a bit lost for words after that. You get told you’re “anti-car”, and it’s “you don’t drive you do you?” As the exchange is nearing its end, you get “we’d better all go back to horses, then” – maybe they’re exhausted too. I know I find it so.
It’s tiring indeed. Sometimes
It’s tiring indeed. Sometimes it’s good to give yourself time off from being “that cyclist” – indeed people then may see you as another person again. When challenged the other day about the actions of some cyclist I was able to spot the pattern and just say “well, I wasn’t there and didn’t see that. Sounds like you thought they were being a bit of an arse though” and we moved on.
There’s probably some profound stuff that you could draw on at this point from some impressive people’s experiences of engaging with people with drastically different belief systems (including the radicalised) and meeting them on common human ground. About gently exploring their assumptions and the right time to suggest asking them if they can see their stereotypes in you… but stuff it, it’s just t’internets.
David9694 wrote:
Yup – that one turned up on my village FB group.
There was a lot of ‘OMG if I have to give way to people crossing at junctions I’m just gonna get rear-ended all the time <sad face>‘, too
And they don’t even realise
And they don’t even realise that is what they have to do now.
If only there were a remedy to not hitting objects in front of you.
I usually read the comments
I usually read the comments on articles like this but never comment. This is my first post.
I’ve been road riding since 2018 and I’ve had my fair share of drivers cutting me up or (what feels like) driving too close to me on fast/slow roads when there’s clearly room on the opposite side of the road to allow me space. I’ve come to learn that this is just part and parcel of being a cyclist. There’s always a minority who are ‘out to get you’ for reasons of their own.
One thing that really infuriates me is when I get hailed down or cut up by a driver who genuinely doesn’t know the highway code. I recently rode down a 50mph dual carriageway (unplanned but completely legal) after making a wrong turn and planned to get off as soon as I could and return to my route. This led to a driver screaming at me saying I shouldn’t be on this rode, blah, blah, blah. This then led to two drivers behind him following suit at speeds in excess of 50mph staying in the left lane, to ‘teach me a lesson’. Safe to say I was infuriated.
Caught the guy at the lights and we exchanged words and he genuinely had no idea I was allowed to ride on a dual carriageway. His actions in turn, caused other idiots to follow suit therefore putting my life at risk.
Ultimately, as of this week, road cycling is coming to an end for me as it’s not the laws/legislation that’s the issue. It’s the culture of the select few on the road, who are setting a bad example to other (ill-educated) motorists to follow suit and turn the whole scenario in to an ‘us and them’ shouting match.
There’s a fundamental issue at a cultural level that’ll never change in the UK for years to come.
Man drove without licence for
Man drove without licence for more than 70 years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-60159649
Or insurance
!!!!
hirsute wrote:
…and still refused to stop and ask for directions.
hirsute wrote:
I tend to think that if someone can do that and not be caught then they’re probably a careful driver.
What snaps my cranks is when drivers think that passing their driving test should be the pinnacle of their skill and knowledge rather than treating it as a baseline to be improved with experience.
You should see the accidents
You should see the accidents in the rear view mirror.
Probably don’t do much mileage but you’d think an anpr would have picked it up before.