Cyclists that ignore road etiquette and the highway code

[fimm]

A bell? I didn't know we are required to have a bell?

I believe that we're required to be able to give "audible warning of our approach".

As most of us are able to call "Excuse me"/"Coming through"/"MOVE"/"F OFF OUT OF MY WAY" according to taste/personality, we aren't required to have bells.

(I got some female muttering that I didn't have a bell on my time trial bike. Where would I put a bell on a TT bike! I ask you!)

On topic - I occasionally want to shout "Red Light!" at someone who has ignored one, but I haven't plucked up the courage to do so yet.

 

[wiggydiggy]

No. Bicycles must have a bell fitted when sold, but you are not obliged to keep the bell on once you've bought it.

I didnt know this when I bought my last bike and rather embarrassingly attempted to buy one as extra when there was already a perfectly good bell on the handlebars

Do you always ring?

I do a lot of cycling on towpath/shared path (no segregation) and find a single pip is enough to stop pedestrians wanderering into my path. Or if I want to get by, 2 slow pips work and a little wave when/if they turn around. I dont know why but I find 2/3 quick pips almost rude when being used as 'please can I get by'

On the subject of bad etiquette though I got a new one > cycling too fast. Again on the towpath, not the widest of paths sometimes yet many cyclist barrel along and given they are often passing within inches of me a little slower would be welcomed.

Ps Towpath where I ride is a designated cycle route

 

[Dan B]

On the subject of bad etiquette though I got a new one > cycling too fast.

Yes. If you wouldn't like to be passed that close at that speed by a car when you're cycling, don't pass pedestrians that closely at that speed.

I'm pretty sure pedestrians have legal as well as moral priority on most shared-use paths, too

 

[wiggydiggy]

Yes. If you wouldn't like to be passed that close at that speed by a car when you're cycling, don't pass pedestrians that closely at that speed.

I'm pretty sure pedestrians have legal as well as moral priority on most shared-use paths, too

Oh yes theres plenty of signs telling us this on the towpath and frankly the short amount time I lose slowing down is nothing. I'm sure a few cyclist though see the path as just for them simply because its a designated route. I'm not and nor should anyone else be using the towpath as it is quicker than the road, but instead because it is nicer than the road

 

[mickle]

I stop at red lights and largely obey the rules of the road because I want other road users to respect me. Doing so allows me to occupy the moral highground - if I was pedalling around breaking every law in the book I wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it came to berating motorists for their poor behaviour.

At the same time I believe that we (all of us) should be very much more tolerant of pedestrians and cyclists 'errant' behaviour. If they aren't hurting someone what's the problem? Ride on the pavement for all I care - so long as you give priority and respect to peds.

I watched as pair of hoody wearing lads rode a moped through a busy pedestrian precinct a couple of years ago. No one batted an eyelid, no-one called the police, no busy-body barred their path. Because they were going at walking pace, giving way to everyone. And because it was Holland. Can you imagine that happening in this country?

 

[mknash]

I stop at red lights and largely obey the rules of the road because I want other road users to respect me. Doing so allows me to occupy the moral highground - if I was pedalling around breaking every law in the book I wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it came to berating motorists for their poor behaviour.

+1

 

[jefmcg]

(I got some female muttering that I didn't have a bell on my time trial bike. Where would I put a bell on a TT bike! I ask you!)

Leads to an interesting thought. Racing cars don't generally have headlights, indicators etc etc. For that reason they are not suitable or legal to be driven on a public highway, and are transported on trailers even if driving them would be simpler.

Similarly, I don't think it's any defence that your bike can't carry a bell, that's justification for not having one. That you can manage perfectly safely and legally without a bell is justification, of course. If time trial bikes didn't have brakes, that wouldn't mean it's ok to be on a public road without brakes, it means that you are going to have to invest in a cargo bike or car to get to your time trials.

(I may continue to cycle home without lights if all my batteries were flat, but that doesn't make it right)

 

[GrasB]

(I got some female muttering that I didn't have a bell on my time trial bike. Where would I put a bell on a TT bike! I ask you!)

IME bell = abuse >50% of the time it's used even at a distance. An "excuse me" (after you've slowed down to around walking pace) & "thank you" gets abuse <10%... the result is no bells on my bikes.

I'm pretty sure pedestrians have legal as well as moral priority on most shared-use paths, too

Which is one small part of the reason I rarely use shared cycle paths.

I watched as pair of hoody wearing lads rode a moped through a busy pedestrian precinct a couple of years ago. No one batted an eyelid, no-one called the police, no busy-body barred their path. Because they were going at walking pace, giving way to everyone. And because it was Holland. Can you imagine that happening in this country?

Problem is my experience of pavement cyclists is that you have to get out of their way not them getting out of yours as a pedestrian... but maybe that's a Cambridge thing?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Problem is my experience of pavement cyclists is that you have to get out of their way not them getting out of yours as a pedestrian... but maybe that's a Cambridge thing?

When walking in London I tend to drop the shoulder and charge!

 

[Dan B]

Problem is my experience of pavement cyclists is that you have to get out of their way not them getting out of yours as a pedestrian... but maybe that's a Cambridge thing?

I see both kinds. And I would be reluctant to guess which is more common because it's only the exceptional ones that stick in the memory

 

[fimm]

Leads to an interesting thought. Racing cars don't generally have headlights, indicators etc etc. For that reason they are not suitable or legal to be driven on a public highway, and are transported on trailers even if driving them would be simpler.

Similarly, I don't think it's any defence that your bike can't carry a bell, that's justification for not having one. That you can manage perfectly safely and legally without a bell is justification, of course. If time trial bikes didn't have brakes, that wouldn't mean it's ok to be on a public road without brakes, it means that you are going to have to invest in a cargo bike or car to get to your time trials.

(I may continue to cycle home without lights if all my batteries were flat, but that doesn't make it right)

The TT bike is an interesting one - when you are on the aero bars your hands are away from the brakes and you have to move back to the outer handlebars before you can brake. This makes me very quick to move off the aero bars if there's anything even vaguely near me or likely to pass me. It is quite new to me, I'm still getting used to the thing!

It is of course illegal for me to ride both that bike and my road bike on the road in the dark - because they don't have pedal reflectors. (I can't see myself ever using the TT bike in the dark, but the road bike I do ride in the dark, of course, with plenty of lights and reflective ankle bands in the hope of conforming to the sprit if not the letter of the law...)

 

[Dan B]

It's a similar kind of thing to the claim that "speed limits don't apply to bikes because there's no requirement to have a speedometer" - while it is true that speed limits (mostly) don't apply to bikes, the stated reason is entirely bogus. After all, breath alcohol limits apply to motorists despite there being no requirement to carry a breathalyser.

 

[wiggydiggy]

IME bell = abuse >50% of the time it's used even at a distance. An "excuse me" (after you've slowed down to around walking pace) & "thank you" gets abuse <10%... the result is no bells on my bikes.


Which is one small part of the reason I rarely use shared cycle paths.


Problem is my experience of pavement cyclists is that you have to get out of their way not them getting out of yours as a pedestrian... but maybe that's a Cambridge thing?

A single ding at distance as a 'ooh look a bicycle' warning with the double-slow ding used if I'm blocked and that seems to work. Wether I thank or not depends on if they have moved out of my way, or to a lesser extent what time of day it is. What I mean is at 'rush hour' mornings/evenings people expect to passed by lots of bikes on my route, whereas early evenings theres lots of walkers and people socializing etc who seem to appreciate the fair warning and a thank you.

I've only had abuse once when dinging someone and that was from 2 people who obviously didnt normally take that route or think that a bike might be on the towpath with them (ps they were drunk!)

Anyway I'd suspect theres a lot of people here who wouldnt use the shared facility, not that that is a bad thing but simply at the speeds you want to ride at its safer for the pedestrians for you to be on the road.

 

[downfader]

It's a similar kind of thing to the claim that "speed limits don't apply to bikes because there's no requirement to have a speedometer" - while it is true that speed limits (mostly) don't apply to bikes, the stated reason is entirely bogus. After all, breath alcohol limits apply to motorists despite there being no requirement to carry a breathalyser.

I think you've confused the difference between the wording of the law and the policies that apply to policing them. My understanding was that the speed laws specifically state "motor vehicle" not "vehicle". However the law states something along the lines of thou shalt not get pissed behind the wheel, the tolerance level that is policed is set by government guidelines to the Police and CPS.

Or something like that. (Have had 3 hours sleep last night so forgive me)

 

[benb]

I don't think they do. True such cyclists give ammunition to those motorists that hate all of us, but that doesn't matter, they hate us for simply being on their roads; behaving well will make no difference to their viewpoint.

I see your point, but when these people say "bloody cyclists, running red lights" other, reasonable, people may well nod and agree.
If they said "bloody cyclists, being on the road at all" other, reasonable, people may well utterly disagree.

In other words, by removing rational reasons for criticism, we leave only irrational reasons, and thus reveal the moronic basis for that small number of motorists that do hate us irrationaly.

I don't think most motorists do hate us - I'm quite sure that more motorists dislike RLJs than dislike all cyclists, even if they do tend to lump us all in together.