Changing cycling rules of the road

[mjr]

Allow sufficient time for the journey. No one dies if you arrive eatly. Time pressure is an entirely human-made construct. Don't buy into it.

If people on bikes need to get somewhere on time they should do what I do. Set off early enough.

I know how long different bike journeys take for me, both commutes and recreational rides.

It's not time pressure but time is basically finite and immutable, whereas traffic rules are an entirely human-made construct. I leave sufficient time but if journeys become slower by changing the rules to make us behave like motor vehicles, or by banning two-way cycling on one-way streets where it's currently allowed, then what do you stop doing to give that extra time to cycling? Shouldn't we construct the traffic laws to enable and encourage physical activity?

Cyclists whinge on here about they want to be treated with respect by other road users and to be treated as bona fide road users but always with a caveat of "I'm special therefore I should be allowed to run red lights; go the wrong way up a one way street; ignore the rules regarding pedestrian crossings cos I'm on a bike innit". B*****ks

B'ks indeed! Every type of vehicle is treated as "special" by our traffic rules already. There's a safety argument for Idaho Stop as well as facilitating cycling, there's usually no legal justification for applying one-way motoring restrictions to cycling - in fact, "facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic" is a valid legal reason for changing many current one-ways to two-way for cycling, and what part of "the rules regarding pedestrian crossings" (for example http://highwaycode.info/rule/195 ) are ignored if you give way but cross the zebra markings well after any pedestrians have crossed? These things are genuinely different for cycles than motorists.

As several posts demonstrate, part of the problem with our traffic rules is that people think they know the rules that apply to cycling but in fact they are a bit confused and too proud to check in the Highway Code or laws.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It's not time pressure but time is basically finite and immutable, whereas traffic rules are an entirely human-made construct. I leave sufficient time but if journeys become slower by changing the rules to make us behave like motor vehicles, or by banning two-way cycling on one-way streets where it's currently allowed, then what do you stop doing to give that extra time to cycling? Shouldn't we construct the traffic laws to enable and encourage physical activity?

I can cycle 500km a week* easily, if I chose to, and have done so, regularly, within the framework of existing traffic laws. I'd prefer it if traffic laws are there to regulate traffic not promote some perceived moral good via a bizarre state-sponsored 21C version of two wheeled Kraft durch Freude.

If cycling on a given journey becomes slower because of factors outside your control you deal with it, you adapt and those adaptations may need to be made permanent. What do you have to stop doing? That is going to depend on the length of delay vs the length of the journey but it isn't going to add up to a significant amount of time lost. And you realise your time-efficiency argument is one beloved of motorists and the lobby groups that represent their interests when they want to promote greater car use and more road building don't you?

*OK I'm a lightweight.

 

[mjr]

If cycling on a given journey becomes slower because of factors outside your control you deal with it, you adapt and those adaptations may need to be made permanent. What do you have to stop doing?

That time has to come from some activity. Do I have a smaller breakfast? Do I sleep less? Do I have less time for leisure? Do I work less? What would you not do if your commute was 10% longer and is it right that cyclists should have to make that unnecessary choice?

That is going to depend on the length of delay vs the length of the journey but it isn't going to add up to a significant amount of time lost.

That's a rather strange argument. When does it become significant? Is it significant if some journeys are five times longer because we're no longer allowed to cycle back down a one-way-for-motors street? Could we simply declare all delays insignificant and do whatever we fancy with the road system?

And you realise your time-efficiency argument is one beloved of motorists and the lobby groups that represent their interests when they want to promote greater car use and more road building don't you?

Yes - it's an argument that seems to work and be sufficient to overcome some very serious drawbacks to those outcomes, so it seems like a good argument for things that would make cycling easier and more attractive to more people.

 

[martint235]

That time has to come from some activity. Do I have a smaller breakfast? Do I sleep less? Do I have less time for leisure? Do I work less? What would you not do if your commute was 10% longer and is it right that cyclists should have to make that unnecessary choice?
.

People make those choices. Every day. Some of those choices are made because circumstances dictate that a person can't do what would be best to save their time. For example, a motorist who has been caught in traffic can't just travel at whatever speed they like on clear section of road.

What makes you special? I hope I'm wrong but you come across as wanting the world to revolve around you and you alone.

These rules tend to be made in the best interests of the many rather than the few. It's only when we change those rules that seem to be blockers that we realise why they were dreamt up in the first place.

 

[Dogtrousers]

These rules tend to be made in the best interests of the many rather than the few.

Says @spockt235

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That time has to come from some activity. Do I have a smaller breakfast? Do I sleep less? Do I have less time for leisure? Do I work less? What would you not do if your commute was 10% longer and is it right that cyclists should have to make that unnecessary choice?


That's a rather strange argument. When does it become significant? Is it significant if some journeys are five times longer because we're no longer allowed to cycle back down a one-way-for-motors street? Could we simply declare all delays insignificant and do whatever we fancy with the road system?


Yes - it's an argument that seems to work and be sufficient to overcome some very serious drawbacks to those outcomes, so it seems like a good argument for things that would make cycling easier and more attractive to more people.

So many questions...

You see mountains.
I see molehills.
We will have to agree to differ.

 

[mjr]

People make those choices. Every day.

Yes, wonderful, but what would you choose to leave out so because a cycle journey takes more time?

What makes you special? I hope I'm wrong but you come across as wanting the world to revolve around you and you alone.

No, not only me. I want traffic rules rebalanced to further encourage cycling because I believe that is in the best interests of the many. In many cases, the reasons for the current rules are recorded (for example, every recent one-way street Traffic Regulation Order / Traffic Management Order has to have a statement of reasons accompanying it; and many of the traffic laws were debated in parliament at the time). Often there isn't a good reason to restrict cycling as much as it currently is, but the orders/laws either didn't consider cycling, or in a few cases explicitly decided to favour motoring over cycling. I am also a motorist but I feel the balance is wrong at present.

At the moment, the top reasons why people cycle here are convenience, health and being faster than alternatives. Making cycling slower directly harms the last of those and indirectly the first.

 

[martint235]

Yes, wonderful, but what would you choose to leave out so because a cycle journey takes more time?

No, not only me. I want traffic rules rebalanced to further encourage cycling because I believe that is in the best interests of the many. In many cases, the reasons for the current rules are recorded (for example, every recent one-way street Traffic Regulation Order / Traffic Management Order has to have a statement of reasons accompanying it; and many of the traffic laws were debated in parliament at the time). Often there isn't a good reason to restrict cycling as much as it currently is, but the orders/laws either didn't consider cycling, or in a few cases explicitly decided to favour motoring over cycling. I am also a motorist but I feel the balance is wrong at present.

At the moment, the top reasons why people cycle here are convenience, health and being faster than alternatives. Making cycling slower directly harms the last of those and indirectly the first.

Cycling isn't being made slower. Travel as a whole is. If I'm really desperate not to lose those few seconds that for example going around a one way system entails, I'll pedal faster for the rest of my journey.

Perhaps I'd lose some time at the beginning of my work day that I'd then make up by not using Cyclechat for 5 mins later in the day. Who knows.

At the end of the day, I choose where I live, I choose where I work and I choose how to traverse the distance in between. If for any reason, one of those factors severely interferes with my work life balance, I'll change it. It's what people do.

 

[Markymark]

Everything is taking longer. Tubes, driving cycling. Even walking seems to be as peopke wander around the pavements staring at their phones.

 

[Profpointy]

I'd support a change in the law that allows all road users to treat a red light as give way when turning left.

One obvious snag with that is if the people opposite have a right turn filter green light

EDIT
Another obvious snag is if the red is to allow pedestrians crossing, not cars. Few enough cars give way to pedestrians at junctions as it is, even though they're supposed to. Had a cyclist crossly posted on here (or the other place) because a pedestrian crossing a side road hadn't deferred to the cyclist's greater importance

 

[martint235]

One obvious snag with that is if the people opposite have a right turn filter green light

EDIT
Another obvious snag is if the red is to allow pedestrians crossing, not cars. Few enough cars give way to pedestrians at junctions as it is, even though they're supposed to. Had a cyclist crossly posted on here (or the other place) because a pedestrian crossing a side road hadn't deferred to the cyclist's greater importance

I really don't see an issue with leaving things as they are. I'm really not in that much of a rush

 

[Funkweasel]

I am a car driverist first, cyclist second... in so much as I do way more driving than cycling. One is a necessity/laziness and the other is a pleasure/exercise thing.
Next year, from the back end of winter/early spring I plan to commute to work (15+ miles each way via country lanes and horrible, yet unavoidable main A roads).
If I avoid the main road as much as possible it'll probably be about 20 each way. I'm up for that challenge.

I don't think any rules should be changed. I'm not exactly in favour of the turn left on red one, either. Mostly because where there's a T-junction, as soon as the lights turn red, the pedestrians cross, even if one then turns to green... if cyclists are proceeding (with caution (ha)) at that point then someone's going to get crashed into.

Also it's never going to be safe to apply that to all light controlled junctions... and people in this country are just too stupid to be able to not ignore signs that say "no left turn on red", or don't say "left turn on red". At least in the USA where this (frankly awesome) rule is in place, they're conditioned to it and it works really well. Here, it wouldn't I'm sure, sadly.

If you don't want to wear a helmet - don't. If you damage your brain because you hit your head... you can live with that.
Similarly for lights - if you don't want to be more visible, then don't be. But don't complain if someone hits you as a result*.

If people who ride bikes could behave themselves and follow the rules of the highway code, then maybe special treatment should be given to them... even though on the whole they tend to.... too many of them don't.

*Not sure how this could be proved; maybe they just weren't paying attention anyway.

The best course of action would be to separate cars, pedestrians and bicycles... but while we're forced to share the same spaces... we'll always be the bad guys.

 

[jonny jeez]

Do the clear majority of drivers obey the rules on 30mph speed limits I wonder?

How is that relevant?

 

[jonny jeez]

These are just lightly thought out suggestions. What do you think?

1. Cyclists to give way if red light. If pedestrians are waiting to cross, or are anywhere near the read lights and might cross, you must stop.

2. You must slow down at lights especially if there are poles or other obstructions that can hide people and especially kids at certain angles. Idk what "slows down" means technically, but for the way I would approach it is "if you collide with someone who just ventures out into the road, then you're to blame" and adjust your speed so you can stop in time.

3. Zebra crossings. A car cannot be on a zebra crossing at the same time as a pedestrian but a cyclist can, as long as the cyclist passes slowly behind the person crossing the road. Proceed at a speed where, if the person crossing the road changes their mind and does a U turn, you better not collide with them otherwise its your fault.

4. At red lights, if you think you cannot get to the front of the traffic before the lights go green, then stay back. There's no hotdog waiting for you at the traffic lights. Stay back, be safe.

5. Cycling up one way streets towards traffic. Don't do it. Not really because of the car's coming towards you, but more because parked car drivers won't be expecting you and will pull out slightly without any regard for your presence.

6. Should you cycle on the footpath? I would like to see this rule changed to yes but only if you cycle at jogging pace and the footpath is uncrowded. But there are too many variables and interpretations that will cause inconvenience to pedestrians so I'm afraid I have to say no to this one. But if there are no people around, then cycling at jogging pace should be ok. Bare in mind, if anyone walks out of their house or shop and collides with you, then its your fault.

Sometimes the above happens when a bus, in the bus lane is pulled up next to a lorry in the adjacent lane, and it stays in this configuration for some time. Highly annoying for cyclists.

7. Parking your bike. Don't park it at a lamp post with a loose fitting lock because soner or later your bike will fall over causing an obstruction for pedestrians.

8. Keeping the momentum going. When a hill is approaching, the cyclist will speed up to keep the momentum high and this reduce the effort required to climb the hill. If there is an obstruction or other danger prior to the hill, the cyclist will take a risk and keep the speed inappropriately high. Don't! If you have to slow down, slow down. If you have to lose momentum prior to the hill, so be it.

9. Slippery stuff. When the roads are wet, the white paint is slippery. And metal covers/drains/etc are even worse. Look ahead and judge in plenty of time to avoid these. And especially at this time of year, avoid wet leaves. Not only are they super slippery but you never know what's lurking underneath them. Same going for puddles; you never know what's there.

10. If reducing your speed affects your strava time, you're more likely to live another day. Try a more suitable route or time.

11. Use lights. Day or nights. Use reflective clothes. Show the world you are there. Having said that, I do like the team sky and/or rapha gear which is in darker colours. Wear helmet. Wear gloves.

Some fair points but as far as the "rules" you suggest (not the advice)... In my opinion, these all allow too much interpretation by Joe average. Also, I know its a cycling forum but they are all aimed at increasing rider convenience.i believe some things should be a little inconvenient to cyclists riding I busy cities, to maintain attention.

 

[jonny jeez]

It is relevant because Drago was trotting out his "all cyclists need to behave before they get any goodies" line.

Still don't see a relevance.

So I should only stick to the rules if everyone else does?

I reckon, while im waiting for the rest of the world ill just start sticking to them myself for now