Changes to the highway code.

[Ferret.]

 

[VPNDeals]

Giving a cyclist who is behind me the right to undertake when I'm turning left is plain stupidity. Especially when you get cyclists who think they own the road then jump a red light at every oppertunity.. or bump up on pavement to cross with the green man.

 

[Universallly]

It’s about time cyclists needed a license aswell

 

[pupuqiop]

It’s about time cyclists needed a license aswell

And insurance should be compulsory too imo.

 

[HiTecK]

Besides the ridiculous bike rules, this will be the result 👆.

It can't last long. The fact these rules were allowed to pass is ridiculous. As already shown by @bonus2010 is was brought in by a cycling lobby.

It will lead to more road rage and accidents imo.

Something I've just learnt is that new Highway code rules were written by a closed group of cycling and pedestrian organisations,

Doesn't seem a good method of intoducing new highway code rules, not to consider all road users

 

[HiTecK]

Giving a cyclist who is behind me the right to undertake when I'm turning left is plain stupidity.

That's always been the case tbf. You should give way to cyclists turning left on the inside of you. It's the rule 5 that is ridiculous suggesting you should allow a cyclist turning left, to either side of your vehicle priority. To me, anyone at the right of me is going straight on if a cyclist. It would be utterly ridiculous to have to wait to check if a cyclist on the right might possibly turn left in front of you to make a left exit.

 

[pabloescaban]

The rules are suicidal for cyclists.
Although I'm not sure rule 5 above means that both cyclists can turn left in that scenario.
I think it means the two cyclists have priority when the car is turning left, in other words, he'd have to stop and allow both of them to get out of the way before turning

 

[HiTecK]

Although I'm not sure rule 5 above means that both cyclists can turn left in that scenario.
I think it means the two cyclists have priority when the car is turning left, in other words, he'd have to stop and allow both of them to get out of the way before turning

If they have priority over turning left. They can turn left from either side. But get what you mean if the car is going straight on. If the car isn't indicating, how would a cyclist know?

 

[Universallly]

And insurance should be compulsory too imo.

Definitely, and mobility scooters

 

[pabloescaban]

If they have priority over turning left. They can turn left from either side. But get what you mean if the car is going straight on. If the car isn't indicating, how would a cyclist know?

They have priority....the motorist has to allow them right of way before turning.
Neither of them are turning left.
The car is turning left.
If he's not indicating, the one on the left will get squashed.
No cyclist is going to manoeuvre to the right of a car if he's intending turning left, unless he's tired of living.
Like you said, they'll be revoked in a few months, although it's unclear why the government has allowed such dangerous laws to be passed in the first place, cyclists are definitely going to be killed before they are revoked.

 

[HiTecK]

although it's unclear why the government has allowed such dangerous laws to be passed in the first place, cyclists are definitely going to be killed before they are revoked.

Completely agree.

 

[wilkijay]

it's unclear why the government has allowed such dangerous laws to be passed in the first place, cyclists are definitely going to be killed

Maybe the vaccines alone aren't doing enough damage

 

[Jimdefruit]

I think we should go back to having a man walking in front of every car and waving a red flag.