New highway code rules

Sir peace frog said:
I'm all for everyone being courteous on the roads to every user and pedestrian, good manners in everything we do, but if the motorcycle/car user have to pay insurance to use the roads then cyclists should as well .
Click to expand...
I'm certainly covered third party as a cyclist, but I don't think it should be compulsory, otherwise we'll end up in a situation where we are insisting pedestrians have insurance to cross the road.

It's compulsory for motor vehicles because they are statistically (by a long way) more dangerous, and the losses involved are much greater.
 
Sir peace frog said:
I'm all for everyone being courteous on the roads to every user and pedestrian, good manners in everything we do, but if the motorcycle/car user have to pay insurance to use the roads then cyclists should as well .
Click to expand...
The major cost of insurance is the third party liability so it stands to reason that having a one ton killing machine is likely to cause more injury than a pushbike.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
There is an image that shows the evolution of the Golf, From Mk1 to the latest model, but I couldn't find it. The image I posted was purely illustrative.

The simple fact is the majority of cars have got wider, heavier and faster in the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

They have. And much safer. My car will automatically take evasive action to avoid a collision with another road user be they a lorry or a pedestrian. It also emails me to tell me when it needs a service and the remote services tell me when it needs something else like windscreen fluid which makes me wonder if it actually needs me at all and could just run errands for me and take itself off for a fucking service. And pay for it itself. I also own a mk1 golf GTi and let me tell you brakes were an optional extra compared to modern cars and steering is so vague it makes you wonder if it’s connected to much at all.

That doesn’t mean we can and should drive with disregard of others. I also ride a bike for pleasure and very much know how it feels to have a car pass uncomfortably close, to have safe distances enshrined in law is a good thing.
 
Sir peace frog said:
I'm all for everyone being courteous on the roads to every user and pedestrian, good manners in everything we do, but if the motorcycle/car user have to pay insurance to use the roads then cyclists should as well .
Click to expand...
You don't "pay" to use the roads. You pay for the upkeep which is collected through general taxation, something applicable to pedestrians, public transport users, motorists etc. "Road Tax" hasn't existed since 1938. Electric vehicle owners don't pay anything to 'use the roads', it's all based on vehicle emissions which pollute the air we breathe. You want to use a polluting vehicle, better be prepared to pay for it!

You can get cycle insurance; it's about £2-5 a month, mostly due to the fact bikes don't cost much, don't cause any damage to the roads due to their lack of weight, don't produce any polluting emissions and the more expensive road models of bikes are usually covered by other insurances. However cars have a much higher capability to cause injury or death, hence the insurance costs are much, much higher. Is that the issue here; you have to pay to run your car so it's not fair cyclists get away with it? Should we also be forced to contribute to fuel costs as a result, cyclists and pedestrians alike?

All these protestations have already been looked at multiple times in Parliament and the conclusion has always been the same; it is simply not practical or enforceable to treat cyclists the same way as motorists. If you have a issue with that, maybe consider ditching your car and enjoy the cost saving practice of commuter cycling instead?
 
Last edited:
I don't drive but in my experience car drivers on the whole seem to be pretty respectful of pedestrians, that being said I was out walking last week and a car shot past me and it was that close it nearly grazed me (Was walking on an unpavemented part of a road).

Now group riders on push bikes IMHO often are a bloody nightmare.
 
Last edited:
mexico1970 said:
I don't drive but in my experience car drivers on the whole seem to be pretty respectful of pedestrians, that being said I was out walking last week and a car shot past me and it was that close it nearly grazed me (Was walking on an unpavemented part of a road).

Now group riders on push bikes IMHO can and often are a bloody nightmare.
Click to expand...

Interesting on our way back from City games, we always say you can tell we are back home because the driving standards are so poor.

So many people turn at roundabouts from the left lane.
I saw one get t boned by someone going straight on on a duel carriageway. He was within the highway code as long as he rejoined the duel carriageway in the outside lane. Which is what he was doing.
I was in the inside lane when the car in front went right straight into the car beside me.
The car in front should have gone left or straight on but no fucking turned right.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I'm certainly covered third party as a cyclist, but I don't think it should be compulsory, otherwise we'll end up in a situation where we are insisting pedestrians have insurance to cross the road.

It's compulsory for motor vehicles because they are statistically (by a long way) more dangerous, and the losses involved are much greater.
Click to expand...
A young lad ran into my car once, thankfully he was shaken up by no bones broken.
Fortunately his dad was behind him and saw it all.
They were good as gold about it and the car was repaired by the house insurance, so maybe other than extreme bikes they are insured
 
metalblue said:
They have. And much safer. My car will automatically take evasive action to avoid a collision with another road user be they a lorry or a pedestrian. It also emails me to tell me when it needs a service and the remote services tell me when it needs something else like windscreen fluid which makes me wonder if it actually needs me at all and could just run errands for me and take itself off for a fucking service. And pay for it itself. I also own a mk1 golf GTi and let me tell you brakes were an optional extra compared to modern cars and steering is so vague it makes you wonder if it’s connected to much at all.

That doesn’t mean we can and should drive with disregard of others. I also ride a bike for pleasure and very much know how it feels to have a car pass uncomfortably close, to have safe distances enshrined in law is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Much safer for who though? I'd argue much safer for the occupants of the vehicle, not so much anyone else.

Yes, cars have gadgets that can slam the brakes on IF it detects an object in its path, and IF the system doesn't have a speed threshold at which that system operates effectively, and there are numerous other bells and whistles warning devices and lane control and radar cruise control and braking assist and traction control and anti-skid... but in general they exist to compensate for POOR AND INATTENTIVE DRIVING, and they allow drivers to drive in a manner unsuited to their level of skill or the road conditions.

If only everyone drove to the test standard within the confines of the rules laid down in the highway code...

On a side note I had a Mk1 Clubman with drum brakes on all 4 corners. Golf brakes were way better in comparison ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.