18 mph 'rule'???

wyadvd

have come accross the results of a dft consultation for a code of practice on the use (or not) of cycle facilities.

It clearly states that if you travel quickly(over 18mph) then you positively should avoid cycle paths , particarly those shared with pedestrians and use the road.

Yay!!!

prj45

Better tell this twazzock then:

http://openlylocal.com/members/345-Terence-Neville

He [Cllr Neville] voiced concern that cyclists did not always use the cycle lanes and could often be seen using the rest of the road. If cycling was to be promoted, cyclists would need to be made aware that they should only be utilising the cycle lanes and not the rest of the road.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London ... nconf%20(2).doc

If he's somebody's local councillor then please write to him, thanks!

wyadvd

cant put a link in cos im on my phone , but if you go to the bikeforall website go to articles then cycling politics and its in there somewhere. Also on nutty cyclists website.

greg66_tri_v2.0

prj45 wrote:

Better tell this twazzock then:

http://openlylocal.com/members/345-Terence-Neville

He [Cllr Neville] voiced concern that cyclists did not always use the cycle lanes and could often be seen using the rest of the road. If cycling was to be promoted, cyclists would need to be made aware that they should only be utilising the cycle lanes and not the rest of the road.

Having a mouth and a title will only get Cllr Neville so far...

Rule 63 of the Highway Code

63

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

wyadvd

although back in 2006 nutty cyclist said he saw a draft for the next copy of the highway code which he alleged included some reference to cyclist compulsion to use cycle lanes. That was his last active posting as he said it made him feel so depressed he felt like giving up campaigning.....was that the case?

wyadvd

cyclecraft is a 'government approved' book and also bears being quoted at such idiots .....

gaz545

I often cycle at or near to 30mph. I have no interest in using the cycle lane at that speed.

Eau Rouge

I believe the 18mph figure comes from an Appeal Court ruling, overturning the conviction of a cyclist for causing a disruption to traffic (the actual offence escapes me) by not using a cycle lane. I believe the ruling implied you didn't have to actually do 18mph just be likely to or some such. A redrafting of the Highway Code wouldn't change anything and I don't see any government even trying to introduce it as a change in legislation any time soon, and I doubt they would get it passed anyway, it would never survive the process.

wyadvd

thanks...useful insight!

wyadvd

eau...

Do you have the exact legal citation so i can look it up on westlaw?

tarquin_foxglove

Eau Rouge wrote:

I believe the 18mph figure comes from an Appeal Court ruling, overturning the conviction of a cyclist for causing a disruption to traffic (the actual offence escapes me) by not using a cycle lane...

Unreasonable riding but overturned on appeal.

HIghway Code wrote:

Rule 165
You MUST NOT overtake

•if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, ZPPPCRGD reg 24]

Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it...You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]

jimmypippa

wyadvd wrote:

although back in 2006 nutty cyclist said he saw a draft for the next copy of the highway code which he alleged included some reference to cyclist compulsion to use cycle lanes. That was his last active posting as he said it made him feel so depressed he felt like giving up campaigning.....was that the case?

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4856

Why did CTC challenge some of the proposed revisions to the latest version of the Code?

The Code's draft wording advised cyclists to "...use cycle routes when practicable and cycle facilities such as advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings where they are provided, as they can make your journey safer."

CTC felt that this advice, if accepted, would reinforce the erroneous belief that cycle facilities are essentially safety features. In CTC's experience, far too many cycle facilities are far from safe, so expecting people to use them as a matter of course and in the interests of their own 'safety', is ill-advised. Some off-carriageway routes, for example, may cause more problems than they solve.

What's more, the draft wording would have meant that the use of cycle facilities would no longer be discretionary for cyclists wishing to protect themselves against the threat of adverse legal action or accusations of 'contributory negligence' should they be injured whilst riding on a nearby 'non-facility' by choice.

Unfortunately, the concept that many experienced cyclists regard the road as the safest place for them was counter-intuitive to some officials and Ministers, so CTC's battle over this proposed wording was far from straightforward.

Result!

Following sustained and concerted lobbying, actively backed by thousands of CTC's members and supporters, the Code now makes it clear beyond all doubt that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle facilities where it would be unsafe to do so. This is highly significant and very welcome.

What Rules 61 and 63 now say:

"Rule 61: Cycle Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."

"Rule 63: Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway. When using a cycle lane, keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."

prj45

Greg66 wrote:

Having a mouth and a title will only get Cllr Neville so far...

I can tell where his mouth is, I'd post a picture to illustrate but I don't think the mods would let a link to goat goatse.cx get through.

dilemna

On the few occasions I have seen let alone used cycle lanes here in the sticks they have had a lot of crap in, broken glass and been in a very poor condition. So no I wouldn't use them in preference to the roads, even if cycling was prohibited on the roads.

Iwingstein

I'll cycle where I think it's safest, not where some namby pamby effin civil servant (whose wages I pay) tells me to.

Much less chance of riding into dozy pedestrians/dog shite on the road though I am aware that there a few few dorks on the road too

wyadvd

its dawned on me over the last few months ( newbies take note ive been commuting since septwember 09) that the best method to judge biking safe is the number of motorists who hoot and shout ......the more the safer !! unfortunate but true!! dont imagine that if ,ou are surrounded b, happ, motorist that ,ou are safe!!

greg66_tri_v2.0

wyadvd wrote:

its dawned on me over the last few months ( newbies take note ive been commuting since septwember 09) that the best method to judge biking safe is the number of motorists who hoot and shout ......the more the safer !! unfortunate but true!! dont imagine that if ,ou are surrounded b, happ, motorist that ,ou are safe!!

You've got that 100% wrong.

sicknote

prj45 wrote:

Better tell this twazzock then:

http://openlylocal.com/members/345-Terence-Neville

He [Cllr Neville] voiced concern that cyclists did not always use the cycle lanes and could often be seen using the rest of the road. If cycling was to be promoted, cyclists would need to be made aware that they should only be utilising the cycle lanes and not the rest of the road.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London ... nconf%20(2).doc

If he's somebody's local councillor then please write to him, thanks!

He is my local councillor :roll:

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

wyadvd wrote:

its dawned on me over the last few months ( newbies take note ive been commuting since septwember 09) that the best method to judge biking safe is the number of motorists who hoot and shout ......the more the safer !! unfortunate but true!! dont imagine that if ,ou are surrounded b, happ, motorist that ,ou are safe!!

You've got that 100% wrong.

Good god yes, you really have! Is this why some riders have so much trouble? Because, touch wood, drivers generally behave very well around me.

roger_merriman

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

wyadvd wrote:

its dawned on me over the last few months ( newbies take note ive been commuting since septwember 09) that the best method to judge biking safe is the number of motorists who hoot and shout ......the more the safer !! unfortunate but true!! dont imagine that if ,ou are surrounded b, happ, motorist that ,ou are safe!!

You've got that 100% wrong.

Good god yes, you really have! Is this why some riders have so much trouble? Because, touch wood, drivers generally behave very well around me.

snap, like you I ride like a car and like you don't have trouble. none this year so far which is normal.

ex-pat scot

See here http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... icefor1688
for the DFT statement on shared use / cycle path that
"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."

beverick

See here http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... icefor1688
for the DFT statement on shared use / cycle path that
"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."

I think the suggested speed is trying to balance a "safe" fastest speed to use a cycle path (for which I'd have said 10 mph would be nearer the mark) and the safest "slowest" speed to use the road (for which 18mph seems about right).

Bob

dilemna

beverick wrote:

See here http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... icefor1688
for the DFT statement on shared use / cycle path that
"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."

I think the suggested speed is trying to balance a "safe" fastest speed to use a cycle path (for which I'd have said 10 mph would be nearer the mark) and the safest "slowest" speed to use the road (for which 18mph seems about right).

Bob

And if you ride at between 10-18 mph ?

CiB

Stay on the roads anyway.

beverick

dilemna wrote:

beverick wrote:

See here http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... icefor1688
for the DFT statement on shared use / cycle path that
"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."

I think the suggested speed is trying to balance a "safe" fastest speed to use a cycle path (for which I'd have said 10 mph would be nearer the mark) and the safest "slowest" speed to use the road (for which 18mph seems about right).

Bob

And if you ride at between 10-18 mph ?

Yup, that's the problem. I suppose the best answer is either, as conditions dictate.

Bob

wyadvd

I was exaggerating a little...

but if you choose not to use the cycle lanes and use the PRP at pinch points and keep up with 25mph traffic, some motorists just dont understand..

So what am i meant to do shrink like a violet into the background and apologise for being on the road?

Eau Rouge

wyadvd wrote:

I was exaggerating a little...

but if you choose not to use the cycle lanes and use the PRP at pinch points and keep up with 25mph traffic, some motorists just dont understand..

So what am i meant to do shrink like a violet into the background and apologise for being on the road?

Buy a BMW. In 3 months time you'll have all the arrogance you need to take primary at pinch points. Worked for me

wyadvd

ill post my commute on youtube and you can decide on the quality of my cycling!

jgsi

roger merriman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

wyadvd wrote:

its dawned on me over the last few months ( newbies take note ive been commuting since septwember 09) that the best method to judge biking safe is the number of motorists who hoot and shout ......the more the safer !! unfortunate but true!! dont imagine that if ,ou are surrounded b, happ, motorist that ,ou are safe!!

You've got that 100% wrong.

Good god yes, you really have! Is this why some riders have so much trouble? Because, touch wood, drivers generally behave very well around me.

snap, like you I ride like a car and like you don't have trouble. none this year so far which is normal.

That young lad seems under the impression that a few months riding allows him freedom to give out a muddled viewpoint - when you ride with no one giving you grief then you may have sussed out how to ride correctly on the roads.
He needs to go back to the drawing board and examine his riding ability.

wyadvd

jgsi......

you are dead right there in a lot of ways.

but hey we are all on a learning curve.

I dont feel that I ride in an exaggeratedly agressive way. Maybe because this isnt London and there arnt the volume of bikes on the road as a percentage of road users, I get a little more grief from motorists (mainly bmw drivers and taxi drivers it has to be said) when I take PRP in what I see as appropriate times.(one roundabout has funnel on an exit that goes from twice the width of a car to barely the width of a car. I insist on taking the primary through the whole funnel- it only last 20m-, becasue i have been almost run off the road if I dont at times.
street view:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&sourc ... ce+(Stop+B)&geocode=FbZuDwMdEBwVAA%3BCRfRMsdhA9NrFWzvDwMdsDAVACH7QHKq2MWZ4g&hl=en&mra=pe&mrcr=0&sll=51.36087,1.387002&sspn=0.047484,0.110378&ie=UTF8&ll=51.350665,1.369772&spn=0,359.912109&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.348621,1.385897&panoid=UBYlIUv-aG7c4Za3ff7GDw&cbp=12,8.54,,0,-8.78

A taxi driver honked me load and long though the other day for doing so.) I cycle past/ through a renowned "chavvy" area and get many inevitable "w@nker" jaunts just for appearing to be a semi "serious" cyclist from souped up corsas with blue light skirts.

What Im trying to say is that to stay safe on the roads (if you choose to use the roads) you have to be positioned for visiblity and to prevent over (or under) taking at pinch points (correct me if I am wrong). That annoys more motorists than you might imagine. The more volatile amoung them hoot at you. Just becuase you're being assertive on the roads annoys them, not because they feel that you have endangered yourself or them.

If they only see one cyclist on their route in sunny Thanet, not the hoards that pedal over the capital, then it takes them by suprise if a cyclist is taking his space on the roads.

A recent death on the roads in thanet of a cyclist who allegedly wore black and never used lights, and was killed in a left hook manouvre by a small lorry has made me reevaluate how I ride and what is genuinely the safest way to ride (as Yous suggest)

wyadvd

very many thanks to ex pat scot for digging out the original citation from the dft archives.