New Highway Code

[alchurch]

Same here. But I was riding along as I normally do, 2-3 feet from the kerb, when one car passed me (small BMW by coincidence), with the passenger window open and the woman passenger screeching at me, something about "bloody cyclists think you own the road". I just gave a friendly wave and carried on.

I am sure that her reaction was provoked by some of the clickbait comments in the press about the new rules rather than the changed rules themselves.

My sarcasm will need to be reigned in. The first thought that came to mind for a reply was " yes we do, this is a bike and that is only a bmw

 

[mjr]

As a motorist I can see the frustration that people can get from being behind a cyclist who refuses to use a cycle path which is perfectly good , out of the way of traffic yet is content to hold up the flow of traffic .

There are far fewer "cycle paths which are perfectly good" than most motorists think. Now, I generally prefer cycle paths because I think it's more fun dealing with a 20% increase in rolling resistance (due to most councils using a less smooth tarmac than on roads) than a line of motorists behind me, but most of the examples of "perfectly good" cycle paths that come to my mind are not in this country!

Even the East West Cycle Superhighway (CS3) on London's Embankment isn't perfectly good: the surface is top notch and the signs are clearer than anything we'd seen before, but I suspect that all those traffic lights and their lack of coordination and countdown timers means that it's actually slower to use the cycleway than the carriageway.

Or the Cambridge-St Ives rail trail: smooth, wide and direct, but the level crossings make cyclists twist around and stop for motorists (or often no motorists), both end junctions are hostile unsigned messes and it floods near St Ives, which seems like an achievement when most of it is higher than nearby land.

More often, it's simply a case of it not really being worth dealing with the junction onto a cycleway because it finishes before you've recovered that deceleration and extra effort and almost always before it has helped you through any major junction. Some cycle paths are worth using IMO more because the alternative road is that awful (A17 Fosdyke Bridge, for example) but that doesn't make the path good: it's just less shoot than cycling on a truly awful road.

I asked for suggestions of decent-length good cycle paths about a year ago, in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/best-cycleway-in-england-for-part-of-a-tour.271330/ if anyone has some more "perfectly good" ones they'd like to suggest.

 

[mjr]

Rule 82 "[...] You may ride across, but you MUST NOT cross until the green cycle symbol is showing"

That MUST NOT only applies to "cycle-only crossings", not toucans. You can ride across a toucan crossing in any direction you like when a red man or red man+bike is showing, giving way to any traffic on the carriageway as appropriate, as well as pedestrians. It's one of those odd legal quirks that a red bike next to a red man is merely a warning, even though the same red bike as the top light on a set of red/amber/green traffic lights is a legally compulsory stop.

 

[Rusty Nails]

A lot of the joint cycle/pedestrian paths alongside roads are getting narrower and narrower around my city because they are poorly maintained and grass and weeds encroach.

 

[Lovacott]

Absolutely. No laws have changed. And actually, most of the guidance changes are more clarification of what should already have been the case than anything really new. There are only a few really new bits of guidance.

Spot on. There is nothing new in the rules so far as I can see. It's always been the case that any vehicle on the road can use all of the width of the lane they occupy. There has never been an obligation for cyclists to ride in the gutter.

 

[Alex321]

There are far fewer "cycle paths which are perfectly good" than most motorists think. Now, I generally prefer cycle paths because I think it's more fun dealing with a 20% increase in rolling resistance (due to most councils using a less smooth tarmac than on roads) than a line of motorists behind me, but most of the examples of "perfectly good" cycle paths that come to my mind are not in this country!
<snip>
I asked for suggestions of decent-length good cycle paths about a year ago, in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/best-cycleway-in-england-for-part-of-a-tour.271330/ if anyone has some more "perfectly good" ones they'd like to suggest.

Not in England, and not really very suitable for long tours, but I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of some of the cycle paths in Rhondda-Cynon-Taf, and even the only one I have used in the Vale of Glamorgan.

If you look at the green (and dotted green) lines here, I have ridden a few of them
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5533778,-3.4216669,7516m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3

The one running alongside the A473 is good tarmac, separated from the road by a verge and a good solid wooden fence. I've also ridden the one from coed-ely down to the hospital, and this is a streetview photo from the middle of that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.555...-pi-20-ya340-ro-0-fo100!7i6080!8i3040!5m1!1e3

And the dotted line near the top from where it leaves the A4093 is a decent minor road which motor traffic is no longer permitted to use (except emergency vehicles), part of NCR4

 

[Illaveago]

Yes, I agree.

Do Drivers stop for a faster car to pass? (e.g. Brabants stopping for Porsches?)
And do drivers pull over in queues to help cyclists pass more safely?
(actually they sometimes do - I've had several this week! But that doesn't fit the party line of Drivers don't know about the changes, and if they do will just be antagonised :P

If I see a really fast car coming up in my mirror I will move over to allow them to pass if there is a good place for them to do so . I also do that for motorcycles . Also if I am in a queue I will position myself so that cyclists could pass down the near side . I won't do that if they are an average 40 mph driver . A person who will drive at 40 whatever the speed limit . 20 , 30 or 60 mph they will maintain 40 mph .

 

[MontyVeda]

If I see a really fast car coming up in my mirror I will move over to allow them to pass ...

presumably that's a really fast car with flashing lights and a siren?

 

[alchurch]

That MUST NOT only applies to "cycle-only crossings", not toucans. You can ride across a toucan crossing in any direction you like when a red man or red man+bike is showing, giving way to any traffic on the carriageway as appropriate, as well as pedestrians. It's one of those odd legal quirks that a red bike next to a red man is merely a warning, even though the same red bike as the top light on a set of red/amber/green traffic lights is a legally compulsory stop.

so do pedestrians have right of way or does their right of way only come into force when the traffic lights stop the road users?

 

[mjr]

so do pedestrians have right of way or does their right of way only come into force when the traffic lights stop the road users?

Pedestrians always have right of way, but hurling motor vehicles discourage most from trying to use it.

 

[Alex321]

so do pedestrians have right of way or does their right of way only come into force when the traffic lights stop the road users?

Pedestrians have right of way over traffic turning into or out of the road, but not over traffic proceeding straight along it.

But does it really matter who has "right of way"? If I'm driving (or cycling) and a pedestrian steps out into the road, I will (of course) do all I can to avoid them, whether they have "right of way" or not. But if I am walking, I will also try to avoid stepping out in front of a car - if they don't see me in time, there is only one person going to come off worse.

 

[Electric_Andy]

Last night I had my first "dither" moment. I've been keeping the new highway code thing in my head to make sure I give way to pedestrians crossing the road. Last night I was going straight through a mini-roundabout and there was a lady waiting at the island, which is right in the mouth of the exit I was tkaing. She was looking down at her phone; I was about to stop when I thought maybe I shouldn't becasue the roundabout is so small I would have been stopped in the middle of it. She was still looking at her phone and not moving, so I carried on through. Should I have waited for her to cross?

 

[icowden]

She was still looking at her phone and not moving, so I carried on through. Should I have waited for her to cross?

In my view - she wasn't interested in crossing, she was interested in her socials. I used to enjoy startling smombies when I commuted (on the bike obviously) by shouting a cheery "HELLO" a la Dom Joly, or inviting them to play Pokemon Go on the pavement (back when that was a thing)...

 

[Mike_P]

It is a should rather than a must. I had a case on Sunday on coming round a corner a person was waiting to cross but not immediately at the corner so does the "should" apply in that instance anyway and I was being followed by a car which had no intent on stopping.

 

[vickster]

A lot of the joint cycle/pedestrian paths alongside roads are getting narrower and narrower around my city because they are poorly maintained and grass and weeds encroach.

Report to council, there’s usually a dedicated form to use online