It's nice that cyclists have slightly more rights, when we are the lepers of transport and not welcome anywhere, but I don't expect to see much of a change. Most drivers don't want to run you over, and most cyclists and pedestrians aren't willing to risk their lives to prove a point.
Personally, I would like to see a bit more clarification of the existing rules for going straight ahead on a roundabout. If lots of cars are driving on a road, then the cyclist (me) will be on the left, near the kerb, in accordance with the rules. On the roundabout, I keep going, with the cars, but I don't turn left. I am in the right place, according to the rules, to keep going. And yet it happens to me regularly that some fucking idiot simpleton retard floors the accelerator and speeds in front of me to turn left, or even worse, slams on the brakes and honks at me for having the audacity not to also be turning left, which I wasn't indicating to do. Also, left is a motorway, where bikes aren't allowed anyway. Obviously the fact I wasn't indicating left means nothing, because many road-users of all varieties don't indicate when they plan to turn, but some drivers are just feral mongs. I don't think these rule changes, which all look like common sense to me, will aid that subset of thick motorists to grow a brainstem. So what's the point?
Yeah, see, it sort of looks like I'm being asked to swing out in front of faster vehicles to make sure they know I'm there, which sounds a bit mental on the face of it. I'm sure there's more to it than this Daily Mail graphic is letting on, but I don't really trust any drivers as things stand so I keep as far away as possible whenever I can.
Also, why did I think this "new" hierarchy of road users already existed?
>>4660 The graphic has been around for a month or two, to give everyone time to get accustomed to the new rules. But there haven't been any proper announcements, really; no government adverts on TV or anything.
Mostly common sense if you think about it.
The only thing I don't particularly like is the change to give way to pedestrians when turning. I think it creates an onus to shift blame onto the driver when the pedestrian stepped out into a road without looking, something that happens very often now when everyone's staring down at a phone.
>And yet it happens to me regularly that some fucking idiot simpleton retard floors the accelerator and speeds in front of me to turn left, or even worse, slams on the brakes and honks at me for having the audacity not to also be turning left
I think the changes to the highway code are definitely on your side here.
Personally when I'm cycling straight across on a roundabout, I always carefully move out into the middle of the lane before the junction, both to show I'm going straight on and to physically block cars behind me from pulling that trick. That seems to be the type of thing the highway code is now actively encouraging.
As that graphic says there has never been a rule about positioning for cyclists, but a lot of the time cyclists end up putting themselves in more danger by sticking in the gutter all the time.
>>4663 >The only thing I don't particularly like is the change to give way to pedestrians when turning.
So you've stopped at the junction, you're indicating to turn, you look at the pavement and there's a bloke standing there looking at his phone, and he may or may not be about to step into the street.
In your mind, the appropriate reaction is to think "well, it's perfectly safe for me to turn now, and if he gets hit that's his own fault"?
>>4665 > In your mind, the appropriate reaction is to think "well, it's perfectly safe for me to turn now, and if he gets hit that's his own fault"?
Yes, he's standing. If he were moving then it'd be different.
>Yeah, see, it sort of looks like I'm being asked to swing out in front of faster vehicles to make sure they know I'm there, which sounds a bit mental on the face of it.
It's covered at length in John Franklin's Cyclecraft, but the basic principle is that your primary road position should take up the full width of the lane, following the track of the offside wheels of four-wheeled vehicles. As a courtesy to other drivers you can adopt secondary position (nearer to the kerb but still leaving you adequate room to manoeuvre) whenever you judge that it would be safe to pass you.
Less experienced cyclists are afraid of holding up traffic and being honked at, but at least that means you've been seen. Riding in the gutter invites drivers to squeeze past you rather than making a proper overtake and it takes away your exit route if they pass too close. You shouldn't hold up traffic for no good reason, but you shouldn't put yourself at risk either.
>>4668 That's the same rules when on a motorcycle. You take "primary" (just left of right quad wheel lane) whenever possible. It's the human on the machine that matters, so whatever makes the numb nuts cager realise it is the correct move.
>>4665 What if you stop your car, he stands still for a whole minute and there's a queue of cars behind you, then you finally decide to start moving just at the very second he steps out in front of you.
>Riding in the gutter invites drivers to squeeze past you rather than making a proper overtake and it takes away your exit route if they pass too close.
This.
As a gutter-rider in a past life there have been times when I've been cycling, and a car or van has tried to overtake at the exact moment as going through a chicane or a pedestrian refuge island and nearly made me shit myself.
Riding in the centre stops that.
When do we ever use "Dutch" as a prefix for something that isn't dirty as fuck, though? Dutch Angle = upskirt view, Dutch Oven = farting in bed (and throwing the covers over your head for a good sniff) - they're worse than us!
>>4670 This is becoming an increasingly unlikely set of circumstances, but regardless, why would you start moving when you aren't sure if he's seen you or not? What is your horn for?
I think I'm going to just start putting Dutch in front of random words to make it sound seedy.
When you think about it, is there any country that gets used as a prefix the way Dutch does? It's like they have a bad reputation. No wonder they changed their name to Holland.
It's always a bit chilling just how angry people get with cyclists, they seem to actually want us to die. This stance seems unique to the UK. And their main argument is the completely incorrect assertion that drivers pay for the roads and cyclists don't. It's quite fun to ask people who say that if they hate sharing the road with cars with £0 'road tax'.
>>4679 I think what you're showing is, it says you can't go left, but every cyclist knows you can just pop on that pavement, cut the corner a little bit, and head off left down that road as you like. Isn't it?