Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Cudzoziemiec on 18 October, 2018, 11:01:37 am
-
According to the Independent.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycling-highway-code-priority-cars-overtaking-dutch-reach-transport-a8589581.html
"Cyclists could always be given priority over cars under plans to rewrite Highway Code"
It's actually about giving HC Rule 170 legal status, along the lines of what Chris Boardman was campaigning for (and the CTC against) a few years ago. If this is how the Independent reports it, the Mail must be causing its readers major arteries to burst.
-
I'd prefer presumed liability, and have that extended to other non-motorised road users.
-
It's actually about giving HC Rule 170 legal status,
No it isn't, it's a re-write of the HC, it makes no change to any legal status.
along the lines of what Chris Boardman was campaigning for (and the CTC against) a few years ago.
Just what is it you think CTC were campaigning against? Here's what they say "It’s something Cycling UK has long called for and which British Cycling has rightly given prominence to in its recent ‘Turning the Corner’ campaign."
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/consistent-cycle-friendly-design-standards-consistently-applied-why-wouldnt-you (https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/consistent-cycle-friendly-design-standards-consistently-applied-why-wouldnt-you)
I heard Chris Boardman speak at last years Cycling UK conference, there may have been some minor differences in the implementation, there was certainly none on the principle.
-
ISTR a proposal that CTC back Boardman's campaign being put forward at AGM and voted down by the Board. I could be mixing it up with the passing-distance idea.
-
ISTR a proposal that CTC back Boardman's campaign being put forward at AGM and voted down by the Board.
???
I think you've got that wrong.
For a start, things put forward at the AGM are voted on by the membership rather than the board.
I don't recall there being any such resolution.
-
Most members just tick the box to give their vote to the Chair. It's quite possible I'm getting this issue mixed up with something else as regards CTC/CUK backing, but in any case that's a bit of an irrelevance. The point is a) it's apparently to be included in the next HC revision b) reporting...
-
Bad idea IMO.
But then many road users have no clue of the highway code.
-
This was on Radio 4's PM programme last night (Thursday 18th Oct) with discussion involving (I think) a taxi firm owner and someone with a pro-cyclist / pedestrian view (sorry, didn't catch who & where from).
-
someone with a pro-cyclist / pedestrian view (sorry, didn't catch who & where from).
Duncan Dollimore from Cycling UK
-
This was on Radio 4's PM programme last night (Thursday 18th Oct) with discussion involving (I think) a taxi firm owner and someone with a pro-cyclist / pedestrian view (sorry, didn't catch who & where from).
All taxi drivers (there will be special place for them in hell, black cabbies will have a special place wit in the special place whilst addisson lee drivers will have special torments for each individual one) are fucking liars, and generally scum of the road. Therefore their opinion is as welcome as someone elses fart in your space suit.
-
All taxi drivers (there will be special place for them in hell, black cabbies will have a special place wit in the special place whilst addisson lee drivers will have special torments for each individual one) are fucking liars, and generally scum of the road. Therefore their opinion is as welcome as someone elses fart in your space suit.
Correct. And the London black cabbie who short-changed me by one pound sterling will have a special place within the cabbies' special place. "The Knowledge" FFS.
-
This was on Radio 4's PM programme last night (Thursday 18th Oct) with discussion involving (I think) a taxi firm owner and someone with a pro-cyclist / pedestrian view (sorry, didn't catch who & where from).
This BBC Radio 4 broadacst can be found at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qq0
The relevant section is from 45 minutes 26 seconds.
-
The best part of the discussion was about what happens when a driver overtakes a cyclist then suddenly finds that they want/need to turn left. Do you turn in front of the cyclist or let them through?
Nobody stated the fucking obvious i.e don't overtake the cyclist in the first place.
-
Sorry I’m confused. Does the current HC say you’re entitled to run down a cyclist when you’re turning? Or that cyclists have to give way to a driver behind them wanting to turn left?
-
Or even (as some drivers seem to think) that cyclists are supposed to undertake a driver who's overtaken them just in time to turn left?
-
Sorry I’m confused. Does the current HC say you’re entitled to run down a cyclist when you’re turning? Or that cyclists have to give way to a driver behind them wanting to turn left?
It doesn't - If you haven't seen it, here's Chris Boardman explaining why there's a proposal to replace the existing 14 rules with one
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20170118-campaigning-Chris-Boardman--Support-British-Cycling-s-Turning-the-Corner-campaign-0
-
Is the one rule to rule them all:
"Don't run people the fuck over"?
-
The best part of the discussion was about what happens when a driver overtakes a cyclist then suddenly finds that they want/need to turn left. Do you turn in front of the cyclist or let them through?
Nobody stated the fucking obvious i.e don't overtake the cyclist in the first place.
Suddenly finds....as the left turn keeps moving.
Sorry I’m confused. Does the current HC say you’re entitled to run down a cyclist when you’re turning? Or that cyclists have to give way to a driver behind them wanting to turn left?
That is the one I missed.
-
ISTR a proposal that CTC back Boardman's campaign being put forward at AGM and voted down by the Board.
???
I think you've got that wrong.
For a start, things put forward at the AGM are voted on by the membership rather than the board.
I don't recall there being any such resolution.
Unfortuantely this "error" is still in the thread's first post.
(If I could be arsed I'd report the thread, but I doubt YACF mods care about CTC machinations!)