Councillor demands more action over cyclists right turn Options

[Biker1]

This made me laugh!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=13611

When have cyclists ever worried about the laws of the road?

I'm sure most couldn't give two hoots about this and have been turning whenever and wherever they want.

Why should this make any difference?

[JeffG]

I thought most of them only used the pavements. It's well known that road signs don't apply to cyclists (since they are usually not on the road anyway).

[dannyboy]

Maybe if drivers of cars gave cyclists the same attention & courtesy they do other road users, cyclist wouldn't feel the need to cycle on the cycle paths & pavements?

[x2lls]

Maybe if drivers of cars gave cyclists the same attention & courtesy they do other road users, cyclist wouldn't feel the need to cycle on the cycle paths & pavements?

Precisely, I ride on the paths when possible and always give way to pedestrians, unlike as you say car drivers, who would even park on the pavement rather than make another driver slow down to get past.

[Biker1]

Maybe if drivers of cars gave cyclists the same attention & courtesy they do other road users, cyclist wouldn't feel the need to cycle on the cycle paths & pavements?

What about traffic lights, one way streets, no entry signs, pedestrian crossings.........................etc.?

[GMR]

This made me laugh!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=13611

When have cyclists ever worried about the laws of the road?

I'm sure most couldn't give two hoots about this and have been turning whenever and wherever they want.

Why should this make any difference?

I agree with your prognosis about cyclists not caring about road signs. Road laws were designed for motorcars, motorbikes and Lorries. In some cases it is ludicrous for cyclists to follow them. I am a cyclist and I use road sense to guide me. I’ve also seen police on cycles do the same. And as police are supposed to be setting an example I’ll follow them.

[GMR]

Maybe if drivers of cars gave cyclists the same attention & courtesy they do other road users, cyclist wouldn't feel the need to cycle on the cycle paths & pavements?

I agree, I’ve been cut up many a times by cars. The other day by the London Apprentice (I think it is called that; Hambridge Road) I was at the cross roads when a car just drove straight in front of me knocking me off. He was lucky there was no copper about. The other drivers just stopped to see if I was ok. Some shook their heads in amazement. And that isn’t the first incident I’ve had down that road.

[GMR]

Precisely, I ride on the paths when possible and always give way to pedestrians, unlike as you say car drivers, who would even park on the pavement rather than make another driver slow down to get past.

I don’t/ won’t ride on the paths as you have to contend with angry pedestrians, glass on the pavement etc. You can'talso use them for riding fast either (as I do). What they should have put in was cycle lanes. But of course the cheaper option was a painted line down the middle of a football path.

[Biker1]

Road laws were designed for motorcars, motorbikes and Lorries. In some cases it is ludicrous for cyclists to follow them.

Sorry GMR I have to disagree with that comment.

Many rules in the highway code apply just as much to cyclists as any other road user.
Some are even specifically for cyclists.

[GMR]

Sorry GMR I have to disagree with that comment.

Many rules in the highway code apply just as much to cyclists as any other road user.
Some are even specifically for cyclists.

I agree, as they were added later. But some were just designed for cars. Was it last year that they said they will have to relook at cycle laws as they weren’t compatible with car laws.

[spartacus]

Road laws were designed for motorcars, motorbikes and Lorries. In some cases it is ludicrous for cyclists to follow them.

Not true... The first Traffic Laws were brought in under The Highways Act 1835. They were before the motor car and designed to tackle those new fangled 'bicycles and velocipedes being ridden furiously' and frightening the horses.....

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 is STILL the legislation used to presecute cyclist riding on the footway.... This provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway."

Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines."

The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the High Court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children's cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law.

However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution. The child's parents could be held responsible for any damage caused by their child riding on the path which could involve personal injury costs in the case of a collision with a pedestrian, or damage to vehicles.

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway.

[GMR]

Not true... The first Traffic Laws were brought in under The Highways Act 1835. They were before the motor car and designed to tackle those new fangled 'bicycles and velocipedes being ridden furiously' and frightening the horses.....

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 is STILL the legislation used to presecute cyclist riding on the footway.... This provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway."

Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines."

The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the High Court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children's cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law.

However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution. The child's parents could be held responsible for any damage caused by their child riding on the path which could involve personal injury costs in the case of a collision with a pedestrian, or damage to vehicles.

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway.

Yes, I know all that, but the law has been added on since. Not everything is appropriate for cyclists. That is why they are looking into it.

[Strafin]

If the road laws don't apply to cyclists you can hardy complain when someone cuts you up - rules on common courtesy don't apply when dealing with cyclists....

[JeffG]

And this is what happens when you cycle in the proper place:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu3KO2UniVI

[GMR]

If the road laws don't apply to cyclists you can hardy complain when someone cuts you up - rules on common courtesy don't apply when dealing with cyclists....

I wasn’t talking about me. I was talking in general.... and motorists cut up everybody whether they use the rules or not.

[wahian]

I think a large percentage of cyclists would be pleased if the Highway Code were amended to read----

Cylists must obey all traffic signs except those that cause them to slow down, change direction, or stop.

[Biker1]

The worrying thing about all this is, despite the antics of many cyclists, if a motor vehicle driver has an accident involving a cyclist then that driver will almost inevitably get then blame.

[GMR]

The worrying thing about all this is, despite the antics of many cyclists, if a motor vehicle driver has an accident involving a cyclist then that driver will almost inevitably get then blame.

Because he has a more dangerous vehicle. I am a driver and a cyclist and I take extra care when I see a cyclist about. Most drivers don't.

[Biker1]

Because he has a more dangerous vehicle. I am a driver and a cyclist and I take extra care when I see a cyclist about. Most drivers don't.

You are obviously one of the more sensible ones when it comes to cycling or driving.

Unfortunately, in my experience, as a cyclist, you are in a minority.

(I bet you slow down on the canal tow-path when passing walkers? Again a minority)

P.S. off subject - you should change your sign off to link to the new Newbury website!

[GMR]

You are obviously one of the more sensible ones when it comes to cycling or driving.

Unfortunately, in my experience, as a cyclist, you are in a minority.

(I bet you slow down on the canal tow-path when passing walkers? Again a minority)

If I confront a pedestrian I am always careful. I usually walk if I can’t cycle through.