Rules of the road please help

[mtread]

Reminds me of that joke where the green driver is going for his job interview, and the cyclist turns out to be the HR manager

[mtread]

I've never had a green car, but I did have an Austin Allegro in what was known as 'shit brown'.....

[fazersharp]

I've never had a green car, but I did have an Austin Allegro in what was known as 'shit brown'.....

All the blue car did was tell the green car "I am letting you out" he is not welling the green car its also safe to do so. Like when a car moves over for me on the Fazer on the brow of a hill with a cross roads at the top and solid white lines on a bend.

[Fazerider]

This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. 
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?

Both were at fault.
Obviously the green car shouldn't have pulled out without making sure he wouldn't obstruct other road users... someone flashing their lights doesn't alter the fact that traffic on the main road has priority. Indeed, if the green car had been driven into by the car that flashed him it would have been the driver of the green car at fault.
However... the cyclist was overtaking at a road junction (contravening Highway Code Rule 167). Yes, we all do it, particularly in big cities where there's a road junction every few dozen metres, and the wording is "DO NOT" rather than "MUST NOT", but insurers will generally go 50:50 responsibility if there is a collision of this nature.

[darrsi]

Apart from the extra road opposite the car, I have this same scenario every morning coming out of the road where I live.
There's a "KEEP CLEAR" box there, and traffic lights to my left, so if I have a lorry, van or bus to my right my view is generally obscured.
Only difference is that being a biker for so long I will try and look and listen for any bikes/cyclists approaching, but in fairness sometimes I just have to nudge out until I can see for myself. I would never just pull out and turn right though.
I wouldn't be surprised if the car driver was looking left at the time as well, thinking the right side was all good, the same as pedestrians do when they walk out into the road between vehicles. That's where my air horn comes into play. 

[Grahamm]

"Legally" i have the right of way as a pedestrian as soon as i put my foot on a highway, above vehicles, i have "right of way".

A common misunderstanding.

"Right of way" simply means the right to "pass and re-pass across a piece of land", ie you don't have to ask permission.

The important word is "priority". You must give priority to a pedestrian who has taken possession (ie stepped foot on) a zebra crossing. You must give priority to vehicles from the right on a roundabout etc. But if you step out into traffic and are hit by a vehicle which didn't have time to see you or stop, it's definitely not 100% their fault.

[midden]

This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. 
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?

OO! OO!   So you can find out if the cyclist was using 'flashing lights  force field'  it allows cyclust to ride how and where they like regardless of other road/footpath users

[darrsi]

"Legally" i have the right of way as a pedestrian as soon as i put my foot on a highway, above vehicles, i have "right of way".

A common misunderstanding.

"Right of way" simply means the right to "pass and re-pass across a piece of land", ie you don't have to ask permission.

The important word is "priority". You must give priority to a pedestrian who has taken possession (ie stepped foot on) a zebra crossing. You must give priority to vehicles from the right on a roundabout etc. But if you step out into traffic and are hit by a vehicle which didn't have time to see you or stop, it's definitely not 100% their fault.

But it does still really hurt a lot when you get run over, so you're better off either not really doing it at all, or paying more attention to what's going on around you. 

[darrsi]

This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. 
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?

OO! OO!   So you can find out if the cyclist was using 'flashing lights  force field'  it allows cyclust to ride how and where they like regardless of other road/footpath users

To be honest, even a reflector is better than nothing at all, which i've seen a lot recently when walking down the road.
And the culprits who don't have anything visual, tend to wear dark clothes as well, so when it's raining and your visor is full of rain droplets lit up by car headlights you don't stand a chance of seeing them.
Same applies to pedestrians who decide it would be a great idea to run across the road in front of you in bad weather, why are they always in dark clothing?

[fazersharp]

"Right of way" simply means the right to "pass and re-pass across a piece of land", ie you don't have to ask permission.

The important word is "priority". You must give priority to a pedestrian who has taken possession (ie stepped foot on) a zebra crossing. You must give priority to vehicles from the right on a roundabout etc. But if you step out into traffic and are hit by a vehicle which didn't have time to see you or stop, it's definitely not 100% their fault.

Right of way and priority mean nothing furthermore I never trust a traffic light of any colour, or an indicator.

[Bretty]

Well I think the cyclist 100% has priority, and the blame for an accident would be placed solely on the car.


although, if a cyclist values their life in the slightest would constantly be looking for these hazards and anticipate needing to stop.

[tommyardin]

I've never had a green car, but I did have an Austin Allegro in what was known as 'shit brown'.....

Yeah I remember the Austin All-aggro, they did them in that horrible mustard dog shit brown colour.

[tommyardin]

This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. 
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?

Both were at fault.
Obviously the green car shouldn't have pulled out without making sure he wouldn't obstruct other road users... someone flashing their lights doesn't alter the fact that traffic on the main road has priority. Indeed, if the green car had been driven into by the car that flashed him it would have been the driver of the green car at fault.
However... the cyclist was overtaking at a road junction (contravening Highway Code Rule 167). Yes, we all do it, particularly in big cities where there's a road junction every few dozen metres, and the wording is "DO NOT" rather than "MUST NOT", but insurers will generally go 50:50 responsibility if there is a collision of this nature.

Consider the chances of the bike rider having insurance! then that has F----d that idea up. I used red in the highlight of the quote to indicate the bike colour.

[Grahamm]

Right of way and priority mean nothing furthermore I never trust a traffic light of any colour, or an indicator.

Priority most certainly does mean something, but you should not rely on others understanding that meaning.

[darrsi]

Was talking to a 72yr old fella last night, who's just had 4 stents put in his chest, and he was saying that he recently went abroad for 20 days and they charged him £320 insurance. He travels quite a bit by the way.
BUT, if anything happened to him associated with the stents, drinking, or smoking, etc, he's not covered at all, and if was to die abroad the cost of transporting him back here isn't covered either!
Insurance is nothing short of fraud.
He kept asking what he gets for his money and they couldn't really give him a decent answer! 


Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!

[crickleymal]

Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!

There is a petition going around that calls for insurance and road tax for cyclists. I'm in two minds about it. Sure they are bloody annoying especially the ones with black bikes and clothing and no lights but on the other hand it would be a shame if the last free form of transport were to disappear.

[Fazer99]

Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!

Yes I do completely agree. However, you would run into the problem of the kiddies riding around on there bikes and they are not going to be able to pay for in-case-shit-happens  (insurance), but you could simplify it by making it to be if an adult cyclist does not have in-case-shit-happens then basically no matter what the accident or fault they have no chance at all to claim.

[fazersharp]

Right of way and priority mean nothing furthermore I never trust a traffic light of any colour, or an indicator.

Priority most certainly does mean something, but you should not rely on others understanding that meaning.

Yes I meant means nothing to me in that - as you say to not rely on others understanding that meaning.

No cycling needs to be kept free because next it will be pedestrians   

[Dudeofrude]

Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!

I've said this for a long time. Not necessarily insurance but I think there should be a CBT style test that needs to be taken every few years if you want to ride on the road, especially in the city.
I'm a little undecided on taxing them but then if you think how much money gets put into making roads safer for cyclists then maybe they should contribute?
After all they spend millions on cycle lanes etc and get nothing back where as with our bikes/cars we pay an absolute fortune in taxes and levys then get nothing on return but pot hole riddled roads covered in speed cameras!!

[fazersharp]

I've said this for a long time. Not necessarily insurance but I think there should be a CBT style test that needs to be taken every few years if you want to ride on the road, especially in the city.
I'm a little undecided on taxing them but then if you think how much money gets put into making roads safer for cyclists then maybe they should contribute?
After all they spend millions on cycle lanes etc and get nothing back where as with our bikes/cars we pay an absolute fortune in taxes and levys then get nothing on return but pot hole riddled roads covered in speed cameras!!

I think that you may be right about the CBT aspect but it needs to cover things just like this post is all about, I think we all agree that the biker was guilty of at least not being experienced otherwise he would of seen the gap been left and the side road and would of been fully expecting a car to be appearing having been experienced he would of slowed down and be prepared to stop.
Yes perhaps in law none it it was his fault and why should the cyclist alter his riding, BUT if he values his life then that is exactly what he needs to do, and fair enough if he has not the experience (he has now ! ) to see the danger then there is a case for someone who has to teach him.
May be they have to pay a fee for this and part of which goes into a fund to pay out in cases instead of forcing them to have insurance.

[tommyardin]

Was talking to a 72yr old fella last night, who's just had 4 stents put in his chest, and he was saying that he recently went abroad for 20 days and they charged him £320 insurance. He travels quite a bit by the way.
BUT, if anything happened to him associated with the stents, drinking, or smoking, etc, he's not covered at all, and if was to die abroad the cost of transporting him back here isn't covered either!
Insurance is nothing short of fraud.
He kept asking what he gets for his money and they couldn't really give him a decent answer! 


Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!

The answer to your question Darrsi is yes they should have insurance, but how you police that with children on bikes? I don't know.

A little story follows about a very very BIG man. this is related in some way to, and, about Travel insurance as mentioned above.


My best mate over many many years is Terry, AKA Wild Plum. I met Terry about 48 or 49 years ago we were both bikers and lived about 15 miles apart and met up in a dance one night (Sounds a bit gay but it's not) and we ended up having a fight, anyway when I came round he shook me by the hand and bought me a pint, well if someone is going to lay you out sparko what a lovely way for the night to end having a pint or two and making the best buddy someone could ever wish for.

Reading Darrsi post reminds me of Terry's plight.

Terry ended up going through the windscreen of a Corsair after hitting a skip lorry on winters evening about 32 years ago, he was taken to Guildford hospital where the gave him pain relief basically to ease his passing, they did nothing to him at that time because there was little to no chance he would even make it through the night.
The following morning he was still in the land of the living (Hope he doesn't mind me telling this his story) they had Terry in the operating theatre for many hours.
He had 170 odd stitches in the outside of his face and head, 60 odd stitches inside his mouth and gums, he had a broken wrist and elbow, both collar bones, one ankle a shin and numerous ribs, plus some internal organ damage that I don't understand nor can I elaborate on.
When the fire brigade got him out of the mangled mess of a car the ignition key (Column mounted ignition switch) head had gone up under his knee cap and had snapped off so one of the other jobs was to remove his knee cap and retrieve the key head.
What followed was months of rebuild surgery to his gums and teeth. Terry made a 100% recovery from that ordeal and continued to work as a brickie on site earning his living.
Terry is one of those guys that refuses to let anything get him down. When he finally was able to get about again he started working on getting his pilots licence, which he did and was teaching others to fly (It must of frightened the shit out of his students when they turned up and saw Terry with his really badly scarred beat up face).

On one such lesson flying out over the south coast in a two seater Terry's student had control of the plane (Duel control) flying at around a 1000 feet just below cloud base, the plane veered off course with a violent smash as an other plane came out of the clouds and took a part of his tail plane off, he grabbed control of the plane and flew it back to the departure airfield some 20 miles away, and landed it smashing the rolling stock and underside of the plane on impact.
The ground crew said he had done the impossible flying the plane with that amount of tail missing and landing it without loss of life. One must assume the other plane was hardly damaged at all because nothing was ever heard about it nor was it reported by anyone else.

The manoeuvre that the other plane was doing was called cloud bombing, fly really high above the clouds then go into a really steep dive and dive right through the cloud base and back out into sunlight.

Terry had said that he had done it before, and its great fun like a crescendo of bright light on emerging from the clouds at an incredibly fast rate. Strictly illegal.

Terry has a Gold medal at home that very very few people see that was warded to him for courage in the face of adversity, this was awarded by the flying club.
He did what was deemed as the impossible.     

Terry has since had bladder cancer twice, had 5 heart attacks and 8 stents fitted as three of them have blocked and had to be replaced.
A more positive and full of life geezer you will never meet.

There are down sides though, he just sold his 900 T140 Triumph Thruxton and the prat has bought a Harley, hence proving that there was brain damage done all those years ago in that Corsair accident.

I was sat in Terry's kitchen drinking tea a couple of years ago now and he was recounting how lucky he had been through life (If that's good luck fuck having it bad) with all the things that had happened to him, illnesses and accidents and stuff like that. He said that through his car accident ordeal Jan (His wife) had stuck by him through all the months of recovery, after his flying accident Jan was there for him and when he came around after numerous heart and balder operations there she was, he looked at her and smiled   and said hang about she a fucking Jonas, with that a bit of battenburg cake came flying across the kitchen and we both legged it.
That man is a LEGEND and I love him to bits, he is in almost every sense of the word My Brother. I think everyone should have a Terry in their life, it makes it so much more enjoyable. 

[slappy]

Compulsory CBT style training, insurance, lights on bike and bike helmet. As for kids on bikes ,letting them on public roads with no training or safety  gear should not allowed. Proper training at an early  age will make them safer and more aware of hazards so that they will feel encouraged to carry on cycling as an adult.
Too many cyclists seem to have tunnel vision and think it is the responsibility of every other road  user to look out for them in any situation .
I also think that it is about time that some kind of visible registration number should be on every bike , difficult to do and administer maybe but some clever sod should be able to come up with something .
I also saw an article in the news this week that a cycling lobby group is trying to have the highway code changed so that when  a vehicle is turning left it must give way to any cyclist that is undertaking it, in other words allow the cyclist to put themselves in a very hazardous situation and hope the driver sees them, not a good idea.
This probably reads as if I am anti cyclist but I am not, up to 5 years ago I cycled regulary but knackered knees put an end to it and I always cycled like I ride motorbikes, make myself visible , ride defensively and remember that in the event of an accident, no matter who is at fault, that it will be me who will probably get hurt most.

[fazersharp]

Allow them the turn left at a red light so that they are out of danger and on the straight, obviously taking care with traffic coming from the right, when I used to ride a push bike 12 miles round trip to work there were junctions where it was safer to go through a red light rather than run the gauntlet with two rows of traffic trying race to the road narrowing point, so by the time they got there I was already past the pinch.   

[Graham53]

Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!

There is a petition going around that calls for insurance and road tax for cyclists. I'm in two minds about it. Sure they are bloody annoying especially the ones with black bikes and clothing and no lights but on the other hand it would be a shame if the last free form of transport were to disappear.

I always found it stupid that a 16yr old moped rider needs insurance ,road tax ,a licence etc but is restricted to 30 mph and no acceleration and then gets overtaken by a 14yr old on a 21speed mountain bike with no training , no insurance, licence, road tax , imo its mental and the things you see cyclists do out on the road is suicidal i.e.wearing headphones trying to go Up the inside of an HGV that's indicating left.

[darrsi]

Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!

There is a petition going around that calls for insurance and road tax for cyclists. I'm in two minds about it. Sure they are bloody annoying especially the ones with black bikes and clothing and no lights but on the other hand it would be a shame if the last free form of transport were to disappear.

Walking, running, skipping........