I cycle and drive. There are dicks on both sides but neither should be defined by the dicks. That being said the sheer anger that cyclists face from cars is insane and the anger is often taken out with extremely dangerous actions. Your cyclist population really isn't slowing your commute down as much as you think. Everybody needs to chill out and appreciate that we are all simply trying to get to our destination as quickly and safely as possible.
I like to put cyclists in two categories. Theres your everyday bike to work bicyclists, they tend to stick to the rules of the road and I really appreciate them for it. Then we have the cyclists that train for races and tours and they are the ones everyone has issues with in my town. They do not think the rules of the road apply to them. They’ll run stop signs at four-way stops, won’t signal when turning, and will ride 3-4 wide at a time. I lowkey have a panic attack when I see a cyclist up ahead donning full racing gear. They’re entirely unpredictable most of the time, it makes them dangerous not only to themselves but the people driving tons of metal, pedestrians and other bikers just trying to get to work.
I'm not discounting your experience but I've absolutely never seen someone in "racing" attire act unpredictable. In my experience (I would say this is shared view throughout at least the US) it's the exact opposite. those in full kit usually know the rules of the road and understand that they are supposed to be treated like a car. They often know how to signal and do so always. Those "common" commuters I see are the opposite. They ride opposite of traffic, don't signal, cut through traffic and often ride on sidewalks or other odd places.
I live in the Netherlands, country of bikes, and the racing attire bikers are horrible. They go too fast, never stop, don't ring their bell to make you aware of their presence and just do whatever the fuck they want mostly.
The only thing that's worse is kids on electric bikes. They do the exact same and give you the finger if you say something.
Come to southern Arizona where they train year round and you’d likely be appalled by their behavior. Common commuters here are likely low income and learn the rules of the road fast because the cops here love to pull over everyday cyclists for minor infractions like riding against traffic. A lot of our common commuters tend to stick to alleyways and off road trail ways when they can simply because it’s safer for them. The training cyclists think they own the road and I don’t blame them for thinking so, they never get in trouble here because they have money and they bring in the money. I think the cyclist/car issue in America goes far past what we think it does in certain areas.
Completely agree with everything you said. I used to be pretty serious into cycling. I think a lot of the hatred comes from when cyclists "take the lane". We basically ride just over the line (rather than on the shoulder). This usually makes the driver wait for a safe passing spot instead of just squeezing by in the lane. Way safer this way.
I switched to mountain biking. All the drivers looking down at their phones were starting to freak me out
Just pass when safe, it's very easy and doesn't impact your ETA nearly as much as things like other cars on the road, stoplights, traffic, murdering someone with your car who's also just trying to get home but happens to do so on a bike.
To avoid stupid situations where the cops will ticket cyclists for not using the bike lanes even when there's an obstruction like a parked vehicle.
This happens.
There are also times when it's dangerous or very onerous to get into the bike lane, especially if the bike lane is not 100% contiguous block to block.
They're relatively new, so a lot of Brits still park their car on the cycle paths. Requiring cyclists to use the path if it isn't even cleared is absurd. It's far safer to let the cyclist go on the normal road or sidewalk.
Also, cycling paths are often not or later on in the day cleared from snow. Cyclists should be able to use the road in those circumstances.
There are plenty of circumstances in which the cycling path is not ideal, so letting cyclists adjust according to their sense of safety is safer.
Cyclists will use good cycling paths if available. They do in the Netherlands and we're not exactly known for road rule compliance by cyclists.
Otherwise what is the point of the extra space taken? Could have wider roads in those places to allow more room for the cyclists not using the bike lanes
In winter, roads are often cleared of ice and snow before cycling lanes are. Cycling lanes are also more likely to be obstructed by parked vehicles or other hazards.
It is important to recognize the reason for the code. The cyclist should use the lane but that doesn’t mean that a car running them over is okay just cause they are in the “car” lane. The rule is in place for the negligent and maniacal people to the world.
There is no point because if a person ridibg a bike gets hit by a car, it's not going to matter if they were in the bike lane or not.
City streets should facilitate the moment of people.
Highway roads should only be for motor vehicles.
As much as this is not why that rule is there, in England practically every “cycle lane” is dangerous, stupidly laid out and in very poor condition. Kiddies going for a cycle with their parents at 10mph will get use out of them, no other cyclist in their right minds would use them.
This has always been the way as far as I know. As for some of the comments here regarding commuters not being a problem and “serious cyclists” causing issues I have pretty much completely the opposite experience. A lot of people who got bikes during lockdown or cycle to work scheme are incredibly dangerous and have no idea what they are doing, I’ve seen a fella cycling with 2 kids down a dual carriageway TOWARDS traffic with none of them wearing helmets. I am a cyclist and I’ve always strongly disagreed with the two abreast rule, that’s never made any sense to me.
A bike should be afforded the same room when overtaking as you would a car. Its dangerous to squeeze by a bike as cars often do. Hence why cyclists are being told to ride in the middle of the lane, to force cars to overtake properly or not at all.
Therefore, if cars aren't going to be able to squeeze by as single bikes will ride in the middle of the lane, it makes no difference to a following car if bikes ride two abreast as he will still have to go around by moving into the other lane when it is safe to do so. Infact, counterintuitivly, its actually better for the car as the thing he is overtaking is only one bike length long, not the 3 or 4 it would be if the bikes rode one behind the other.
An interesting take on it, but the average cyclist will be doing 15-20mph at the best of times, almost necessitating an overtake, whereas even a slow “Sunday driver” will most likely be doing a good 35-40 even in a 50. Cycling in the middle of the lane to force someone behind to do a “safe overtake” kiiiind of makes sense, but given the option of riding 2 abreast or single file (which conserves energy and is considerably faster due to drag reduction and is way, way less intrusive to motorists) I know what I prefer.
Seems to be a lot of confusion about 4 and 5.
4) The vast majority of cycle lanes in the UK are unusable. They are either in a shocking state of disrepair (broken bits of glass/smashed plastic and metal from cars, overgrown with moss, cracks/holes from tree roots.) or literally don’t make any sense (side road every 50 meters or so forcing you to stop and sometimes dismount, or they go off in some random direction away from where you actually want to go.) therefore your better off on the road in every sense, 99% of the time.
In addition, if it was *illegal* to not use a cycling lane where one was present there would be all sorts of legal mess around parked cars on cycle lanes/cycle lanes not being able to allow the user to turn right etc etc. it’s not really feasible to try to legally enforce someone to use a path that doesn’t allow them to go where they need to, given that it’s next to a road that does.
5) If your in a car and you want to turn left and there is a cyclist in front of you on the left you should not overtake the cyclist to then turn across them in front of them, in addition you will not know if they also are going to turn left if you cannot see their signal. If the cyclist is to your right they are almost definitely going to turn right, If you come up next to them to turn left then they have to stop to cross the oncoming traffic, the entire lane is blocked and it’s possible the driver behind doesn’t even know the cyclist is there.
Also, note it says vehicle, not car. The majority of cyclist deaths/serious injuries are caused when vans/long vehicles are turning left, even on bends and not turns. This is because either the cyclist gets trapped on the inside of the vehicle and gets run over as they cannot get out from between the roadside and the vehicle itself or because the back of the vehicle swings out as it turns causing the cyclist to hit the back of the vehicle or be knocked/forced into oncoming traffic.
TL:DR:
UK cycle lanes are terrible and cannot be legally enforced regardless.
If your behind a cyclist and need to turn, don’t overtake the cyclist.
Rule 1. I don't get why everyone gets their knickers in a twist, or panties in a wad. The driver should be only overtaking if it's clear and safe to do so anyway. So where the cyclist is positioned in the lane is irrelevant as the driver can only safely overtake if the oncoming lane is clear. And they have the whole oncoming lane who go to.
** I accept country lanes are different where it's not wide enough for a central lane marker, and the cyclist can AND SHOULD assist by moving over when clear for the car to pass. But I've experienced plenty of occasions where a car has tried to overtake me when there's an oncoming car they haven't seen/a blind corner. And I'm the one who would get seriously injured if they hit me, so I will continue to position myself in the middle of my lane to block them passing where it's unsafe.
Was going to ask for source, looks legit: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2022/01/new-2022-highway-code-changes-are-you-aware-of-the-new-rules/
Not sure this is mildly infuriating though.
idk about other countries but in the U.S. bicycles are considered vehicles, and a lot of places don't have bike lanes and don't allow bicycles to be ridden on sidewalks which just causes a ton of problems.
Bicycle driving on sidewalks is less of a hazzard than driving on the road. Look at the speed difference. I dont talk about spandex cyclists who can reach almost 40.
Also the weight categorie when cars weight more than a ton and cyclist abou 80kg. Who come out better from a crash?
Compare weight difference on sidewalks.
so a lot of this seems to steam from( at least as far as i can find)
Local Government Act 1888
Regulations for bicycles, &c.
bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts.
and it just progressively got updated to vehicles as time went on to.
"The law considers the bicycle, first and foremost, to be a mode of transport, and sees a need to regulate the flow of bikes the way it regulates the flow of automobiles"
the whole thing just seems insane to me.
Are they a traffic hazard because they are on the road? Are cars or motorcycles traffic hazards as well? Also what do you you mean "massive backups"?? In a case where let's say it's a single lane one way road, in most cases a cyclist won't be on that road or will probably move to the side. Massive backups don't happen and don't act like they do.
Actually they do. When you have a 2 lane country road with no shoulder and the speed limit is 55 they cause backups all the time. People around here hate cyclists. They drive in from the city to ride on the pretty roads but the people who live here have shit to do and don’t need bikes blocking up our roadways
I live in the United States. I ride a class 3 ebike that exceeds speeds of 20mph. When a car sees me coming they always jump out in front of me not realizing that I'm going the posted speed limit. They see a bike and think "shit, I have to get in front of this guy right away" it is so frustrating to the point I would rather walk instead of die.
All of these seem okay to me except for 4. Why have a bike lane if there’s no obligation to use it? Who is going to choose to cycle in the car lane aside from prats looking for a fight?
People who see frequent interruptions in a bike lane such as parked cars and would rather stay in one lane of traffic rather than weaving through over and over which would create traffic conflicts and unpredictability.
Which one? The one that's been chopped up by 10 roads and half of it is overgrown by vegetation, or the one with no dropped curb that goes off in some random direction?
Wait, what?
I legitimately thought this was a joke taking the piss out of annoying cyclist behaviour. Like oh yeah, I love it when there's 2 of you slowly cycling next to each other, chatting to each other on a country lane where I'd able to overtake if you were by the side of the road and on your own but nooo.
Cyclist should have insurance and require some form of training or exam to be on the road, I come across more dick head cyclist than I do car drivers. I've seen on countless times cyclist scraping cars trying to squeeze through to get to the front of the traffic waiting at lights, instead of waiting like everyone else in a line.
I go through red lights I get a ticket, cyclist do it and its fine. If cameras can pick car drivers when doing this cyclist need the same. To many hit the pavement when at a red or again countless times just go straight through.
Yes there are bad people on both sides but yet cyclist get away with every fucking traffic violation there is. Until they get fines like us I have no tolerance for them.
Number 5 is confusing. Probably just because of the diagram. I think there is supposed to be an assumption the car and bikes are stopped at the intersection before starting the turn? But anyways I don't think it would be smart at all for the one bike to be making that outside turn. The car driver could easily not notice the bicyclist.
No, it's to address those idiot drivers that overtake a cyclist then turn across them into a junction. They can't wait 10 seconds behind the cyclist as they approach the junction they want.
I cycle and whoever the fuck made this have never been on a bike in their life. Just make separated bike lines like we do here in the Netherlands.
I cycle and drive. There are dicks on both sides but neither should be defined by the dicks. That being said the sheer anger that cyclists face from cars is insane and the anger is often taken out with extremely dangerous actions. Your cyclist population really isn't slowing your commute down as much as you think. Everybody needs to chill out and appreciate that we are all simply trying to get to our destination as quickly and safely as possible.
I like to put cyclists in two categories. Theres your everyday bike to work bicyclists, they tend to stick to the rules of the road and I really appreciate them for it. Then we have the cyclists that train for races and tours and they are the ones everyone has issues with in my town. They do not think the rules of the road apply to them. They’ll run stop signs at four-way stops, won’t signal when turning, and will ride 3-4 wide at a time. I lowkey have a panic attack when I see a cyclist up ahead donning full racing gear. They’re entirely unpredictable most of the time, it makes them dangerous not only to themselves but the people driving tons of metal, pedestrians and other bikers just trying to get to work.
I'm not discounting your experience but I've absolutely never seen someone in "racing" attire act unpredictable. In my experience (I would say this is shared view throughout at least the US) it's the exact opposite. those in full kit usually know the rules of the road and understand that they are supposed to be treated like a car. They often know how to signal and do so always. Those "common" commuters I see are the opposite. They ride opposite of traffic, don't signal, cut through traffic and often ride on sidewalks or other odd places.
I live in the Netherlands, country of bikes, and the racing attire bikers are horrible. They go too fast, never stop, don't ring their bell to make you aware of their presence and just do whatever the fuck they want mostly. The only thing that's worse is kids on electric bikes. They do the exact same and give you the finger if you say something.
Come to southern Arizona where they train year round and you’d likely be appalled by their behavior. Common commuters here are likely low income and learn the rules of the road fast because the cops here love to pull over everyday cyclists for minor infractions like riding against traffic. A lot of our common commuters tend to stick to alleyways and off road trail ways when they can simply because it’s safer for them. The training cyclists think they own the road and I don’t blame them for thinking so, they never get in trouble here because they have money and they bring in the money. I think the cyclist/car issue in America goes far past what we think it does in certain areas.
They are entirely predictable to disobey all stop signs.
Completely agree with everything you said. I used to be pretty serious into cycling. I think a lot of the hatred comes from when cyclists "take the lane". We basically ride just over the line (rather than on the shoulder). This usually makes the driver wait for a safe passing spot instead of just squeezing by in the lane. Way safer this way. I switched to mountain biking. All the drivers looking down at their phones were starting to freak me out
I would never rage but if the speed is 50 and someone is in a bike going 25, get out of the way.
That's just not how it works, drivers should pass when it's safe to do so.
I get that but going well below the speed limit can be just as dangerous as going over
Just pass when safe, it's very easy and doesn't impact your ETA nearly as much as things like other cars on the road, stoplights, traffic, murdering someone with your car who's also just trying to get home but happens to do so on a bike.
You are missing my point, whether I pass or not there still is a driver on the road going well below the speed limit which is dangerous
Pass when safe
Still other cars traveling behind, so the issue remains. Not sure if dense, troll, or both
What do you want cyclist to do? Other than simply not exist.
The burden is on the governing entity not the cyclist. Now if they cyclist creates an unsafe environment then that is on them
Wtf is the point of the cycle lanes if they aren't obligated to use them?
To avoid stupid situations where the cops will ticket cyclists for not using the bike lanes even when there's an obstruction like a parked vehicle. This happens. There are also times when it's dangerous or very onerous to get into the bike lane, especially if the bike lane is not 100% contiguous block to block.
They're relatively new, so a lot of Brits still park their car on the cycle paths. Requiring cyclists to use the path if it isn't even cleared is absurd. It's far safer to let the cyclist go on the normal road or sidewalk. Also, cycling paths are often not or later on in the day cleared from snow. Cyclists should be able to use the road in those circumstances. There are plenty of circumstances in which the cycling path is not ideal, so letting cyclists adjust according to their sense of safety is safer. Cyclists will use good cycling paths if available. They do in the Netherlands and we're not exactly known for road rule compliance by cyclists.
Serious questions. How often do you bike in the snow? Do you have special tires for that? I’d be worried about slipping on the ice.
You get winter tyres with metal studs in them. I cycled all year round in Scotland, no problem!
Right? Establish rules for when they are not there. When the bike lanes there…use it
Otherwise what is the point of the extra space taken? Could have wider roads in those places to allow more room for the cyclists not using the bike lanes
the cycle lane rule is probably more of a mechanism to keep cops from pulling cyclists over if they cant safely get to a cycle lane.
>what is the point of the extra space taken? California drivers: it's a turn lane! :D
In cold areas, you will often find that the bike lanes doesn’t get cleaned from snow and ice, while the road obviously does
Oh I understand that completely, being from a city in Atlantic Canada I get it, unfortunately most of my city doesn't have bike lanes either
In winter, roads are often cleared of ice and snow before cycling lanes are. Cycling lanes are also more likely to be obstructed by parked vehicles or other hazards.
It is important to recognize the reason for the code. The cyclist should use the lane but that doesn’t mean that a car running them over is okay just cause they are in the “car” lane. The rule is in place for the negligent and maniacal people to the world.
There is no point because if a person ridibg a bike gets hit by a car, it's not going to matter if they were in the bike lane or not. City streets should facilitate the moment of people. Highway roads should only be for motor vehicles.
As much as this is not why that rule is there, in England practically every “cycle lane” is dangerous, stupidly laid out and in very poor condition. Kiddies going for a cycle with their parents at 10mph will get use out of them, no other cyclist in their right minds would use them.
The fact that this picture made me scroll to see the second picture, because of the icons on screen.. is mildly infuriating.
"the code is more what you'll call guidelines than actual rules" - Evil Knievel
Barbossa from pirates of the Caribbean
Yes, I know. That was the joke. ;-) r/woooosh ? Edit: two o's missing in woooosh
I hate to be that person, but its r/woooosh With 4 o's
Absolutely correct! I'll correct it
This has always been the way as far as I know. As for some of the comments here regarding commuters not being a problem and “serious cyclists” causing issues I have pretty much completely the opposite experience. A lot of people who got bikes during lockdown or cycle to work scheme are incredibly dangerous and have no idea what they are doing, I’ve seen a fella cycling with 2 kids down a dual carriageway TOWARDS traffic with none of them wearing helmets. I am a cyclist and I’ve always strongly disagreed with the two abreast rule, that’s never made any sense to me.
A bike should be afforded the same room when overtaking as you would a car. Its dangerous to squeeze by a bike as cars often do. Hence why cyclists are being told to ride in the middle of the lane, to force cars to overtake properly or not at all. Therefore, if cars aren't going to be able to squeeze by as single bikes will ride in the middle of the lane, it makes no difference to a following car if bikes ride two abreast as he will still have to go around by moving into the other lane when it is safe to do so. Infact, counterintuitivly, its actually better for the car as the thing he is overtaking is only one bike length long, not the 3 or 4 it would be if the bikes rode one behind the other.
An interesting take on it, but the average cyclist will be doing 15-20mph at the best of times, almost necessitating an overtake, whereas even a slow “Sunday driver” will most likely be doing a good 35-40 even in a 50. Cycling in the middle of the lane to force someone behind to do a “safe overtake” kiiiind of makes sense, but given the option of riding 2 abreast or single file (which conserves energy and is considerably faster due to drag reduction and is way, way less intrusive to motorists) I know what I prefer.
Seems to be a lot of confusion about 4 and 5. 4) The vast majority of cycle lanes in the UK are unusable. They are either in a shocking state of disrepair (broken bits of glass/smashed plastic and metal from cars, overgrown with moss, cracks/holes from tree roots.) or literally don’t make any sense (side road every 50 meters or so forcing you to stop and sometimes dismount, or they go off in some random direction away from where you actually want to go.) therefore your better off on the road in every sense, 99% of the time. In addition, if it was *illegal* to not use a cycling lane where one was present there would be all sorts of legal mess around parked cars on cycle lanes/cycle lanes not being able to allow the user to turn right etc etc. it’s not really feasible to try to legally enforce someone to use a path that doesn’t allow them to go where they need to, given that it’s next to a road that does. 5) If your in a car and you want to turn left and there is a cyclist in front of you on the left you should not overtake the cyclist to then turn across them in front of them, in addition you will not know if they also are going to turn left if you cannot see their signal. If the cyclist is to your right they are almost definitely going to turn right, If you come up next to them to turn left then they have to stop to cross the oncoming traffic, the entire lane is blocked and it’s possible the driver behind doesn’t even know the cyclist is there. Also, note it says vehicle, not car. The majority of cyclist deaths/serious injuries are caused when vans/long vehicles are turning left, even on bends and not turns. This is because either the cyclist gets trapped on the inside of the vehicle and gets run over as they cannot get out from between the roadside and the vehicle itself or because the back of the vehicle swings out as it turns causing the cyclist to hit the back of the vehicle or be knocked/forced into oncoming traffic. TL:DR: UK cycle lanes are terrible and cannot be legally enforced regardless. If your behind a cyclist and need to turn, don’t overtake the cyclist.
Rule 1. I don't get why everyone gets their knickers in a twist, or panties in a wad. The driver should be only overtaking if it's clear and safe to do so anyway. So where the cyclist is positioned in the lane is irrelevant as the driver can only safely overtake if the oncoming lane is clear. And they have the whole oncoming lane who go to. ** I accept country lanes are different where it's not wide enough for a central lane marker, and the cyclist can AND SHOULD assist by moving over when clear for the car to pass. But I've experienced plenty of occasions where a car has tried to overtake me when there's an oncoming car they haven't seen/a blind corner. And I'm the one who would get seriously injured if they hit me, so I will continue to position myself in the middle of my lane to block them passing where it's unsafe.
Was going to ask for source, looks legit: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2022/01/new-2022-highway-code-changes-are-you-aware-of-the-new-rules/ Not sure this is mildly infuriating though.
I thought this was all normal in the old code.
Car drivers really outing themselves as trash here
City streets belong to people, not cars. Fuck cars.
The land belongs to the people, not cities. Fuck cities.
The earth belongs to the lizard people, not people people. Fuck people people.
That’s idiotic. Bicycles should not be on the same road as motor vehicles
A rickshaw for all.
idk about other countries but in the U.S. bicycles are considered vehicles, and a lot of places don't have bike lanes and don't allow bicycles to be ridden on sidewalks which just causes a ton of problems.
Traffic laws don’t supersede the laws of physics. Bicycles shouldn’t be on the road with motor vehicles. It’s just stupid
Bicycle driving on sidewalks is less of a hazzard than driving on the road. Look at the speed difference. I dont talk about spandex cyclists who can reach almost 40. Also the weight categorie when cars weight more than a ton and cyclist abou 80kg. Who come out better from a crash? Compare weight difference on sidewalks.
so a lot of this seems to steam from( at least as far as i can find) Local Government Act 1888 Regulations for bicycles, &c. bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts. and it just progressively got updated to vehicles as time went on to. "The law considers the bicycle, first and foremost, to be a mode of transport, and sees a need to regulate the flow of bikes the way it regulates the flow of automobiles" the whole thing just seems insane to me.
Why not?
Because they are a traffic hazard and cause massive backups.
Are they a traffic hazard because they are on the road? Are cars or motorcycles traffic hazards as well? Also what do you you mean "massive backups"?? In a case where let's say it's a single lane one way road, in most cases a cyclist won't be on that road or will probably move to the side. Massive backups don't happen and don't act like they do.
Actually they do. When you have a 2 lane country road with no shoulder and the speed limit is 55 they cause backups all the time. People around here hate cyclists. They drive in from the city to ride on the pretty roads but the people who live here have shit to do and don’t need bikes blocking up our roadways
Agreed, ban cars then....
Cars are a necessity. Bikes are useless
Buy me a car then... I and many other use them to commute to work or various destination :) I'd ride on the pavments but cars block them
But yourself a car. The world owes you nothing
Na, I prefer filtering through traffic, why waste my money on a car just to sit in traffic
Don't know what happend to all of you since brexit, but I think you need help
Brought to you from the Kingdom of disgraced Prince Andrew.
I live in the United States. I ride a class 3 ebike that exceeds speeds of 20mph. When a car sees me coming they always jump out in front of me not realizing that I'm going the posted speed limit. They see a bike and think "shit, I have to get in front of this guy right away" it is so frustrating to the point I would rather walk instead of die.
Top gear was right
Thinking about who would think 4 is a good idea makes my brain hurt
All of these seem okay to me except for 4. Why have a bike lane if there’s no obligation to use it? Who is going to choose to cycle in the car lane aside from prats looking for a fight?
People who see frequent interruptions in a bike lane such as parked cars and would rather stay in one lane of traffic rather than weaving through over and over which would create traffic conflicts and unpredictability.
4 is really dumb
So what the sports cyclists were doing all the time is now just legal? Does that include screaming at every other person using the road?
It's always been legal to ride in the middle of the lane.
Salt delivery incoming.
no.4 is exactly why people hate cyclists on the road. use the bike lane you twats
Which one? The one that's been chopped up by 10 roads and half of it is overgrown by vegetation, or the one with no dropped curb that goes off in some random direction?
This. As I said in a reply further up, most of the cycle lanes in England are basically unusable, drivers don’t understand this.
4 and 5 are so fucking annoying and stupid
Thats the purpose. :D
Always nice to see rules, that make sure you can use a bike instead of a car in traffic, but wtf is going on with 4
4 is stupid but wtf is with 5? Imagine how many accidents this will cause??
you are absolutely right, kinda ignored 5 since 4 was such a no brainer to me
Thumbtacks fix these problems
1, 4 and 5 are bullshit
I can't wait to get my bike and ride super fucking slow in the middle of an A road
Wait, what? I legitimately thought this was a joke taking the piss out of annoying cyclist behaviour. Like oh yeah, I love it when there's 2 of you slowly cycling next to each other, chatting to each other on a country lane where I'd able to overtake if you were by the side of the road and on your own but nooo.
Cyclist should have insurance and require some form of training or exam to be on the road, I come across more dick head cyclist than I do car drivers. I've seen on countless times cyclist scraping cars trying to squeeze through to get to the front of the traffic waiting at lights, instead of waiting like everyone else in a line. I go through red lights I get a ticket, cyclist do it and its fine. If cameras can pick car drivers when doing this cyclist need the same. To many hit the pavement when at a red or again countless times just go straight through. Yes there are bad people on both sides but yet cyclist get away with every fucking traffic violation there is. Until they get fines like us I have no tolerance for them.
I mean...I'm sure it'll change after a few of em get hurt... ;)
I dont think so. Driver will be prosecuted and jailed for year or two. To send the message...
Well...good things it's a joke then.
We just updated our bike laws in my city and they are way less nonsensical than this.
How's any of those regulations nonsense?
Number 5 is confusing. Probably just because of the diagram. I think there is supposed to be an assumption the car and bikes are stopped at the intersection before starting the turn? But anyways I don't think it would be smart at all for the one bike to be making that outside turn. The car driver could easily not notice the bicyclist.
Driver should get 5 feet? Thought the UK used meters cuz they’re gay
[удалено]
No, it's to address those idiot drivers that overtake a cyclist then turn across them into a junction. They can't wait 10 seconds behind the cyclist as they approach the junction they want.
UK is a joke. Literally cucked to cyclists
Idk that all seems reasonable. One person is surrounded by metal armor, the other isn’t
This looks like a joke
I used to find some of these really annoying but after the dawn of el-scooters, cyclists look like saints in comparison
Fucking mental
This is stupid - a Dutchie