Strange old English laws still around

[Melvyn Best]

I haven't got exact numbers but from what I read on here. You can't move down the country lanes for pelotons of lycra clad Tour de France wannabes. The bigger roads are full of head down **** up time trial racers not looking where they're going. All of the roads in the cities have been replaced with cycle lanes and every where else it's not safe to go on the pavement or roads because they're full of blacked out e bike riders jumping red lights and mowing people down.

So from that I'm guessing that there must be millions of cyclists, certainly far more than cars?

Sounds a bit like Cambridge, even the traffic lights have an early green light for cyclists with cars having to wait . If the cyclists actually stop in the first place . This is not an anti cyclist rant, I ride a bike. I do think it should be a legal requirement for cyclists to use a cycle lane if there is one

 

[DanZac]

I do think it should be a legal requirement for cyclists to use a cycle lane if there is one

In the same vein should it be a legal requirement for motorists to only use a motorway and not the A or B roads if there is one?

Maybe if cycle lanes followed the same convention as normal roads instead of making the cyclist stop at every junction instead of proceeding with the road traffic, and didn't mix, cyclists, pedestrians and dog walkers on the same path, more would use them.

Cycle paths work well when designed and built as cycle paths, but in the majority of cases are poorly considered tick boxing that is more dangerous than remaining on the road.

 

[ajlelectronics]

instead of making the cyclist stop at every junction instead of proceeding with the road traffic

They ARE traffic and so should follow the traffic rules.

 

[eSCHEn]

An interesting video on Cycle Paths from Chris Spargo the other day:

 

[Melvyn Best]

In the same vein should it be a legal requirement for motorists to only use a motorway and not the A or B roads if there is one?

Maybe if cycle lanes followed the same convention as normal roads instead of making the cyclist stop at every junction instead of proceeding with the road traffic, and didn't mix, cyclists, pedestrians and dog walkers on the same path, more would use them.

Cycle paths work well when designed and built as cycle paths, but in the majority of cases are poorly considered tick boxing that is more dangerous than remaining on the road.

There is a dual carriageway just outside Cambridge , the A1307, that has a nicely surfaced shared cycle/footpath running beside it, the road has a 60MPH speed limit and yet there is a woman that insists on riding on the dual carriageway wearing no hi-viz clothing and a small, dim rear light. She puts herself in danger every evening just after 5PM ! Why, ? Because she can, she wouldn’t be allowed to ride on a motorway. The only good thing about her ride is at least it’s on the road to Addenbrooks hospital A and E

 

[DanZac]

They ARE traffic and so should follow the traffic rules.

You miss understand my point. A cycle lane running alongside a road will have the cyclist stop and give way at every junction, whilst the road traffic will proceed unhindered past the junction.

Cyclist gives way at every junction / obstruction whilst the traffic flows unhindered.

 

[DanZac]

There is a dual carriageway just outside Cambridge , the A1307, that has a nicely surfaced shared cycle/footpath running beside it, the road has a 60MPH speed limit and yet there is a woman that insists on riding on the dual carriageway wearing no hi-viz clothing and a small, dim rear light. She puts herself in danger every evening just after 5PM ! Why, ? Because she can, she wouldn’t be allowed to ride on a motorway. The only good thing about her ride is at least it’s on the road to Addenbrooks hospital A and E

There is a small B road and the A30 duel carriageway that run within 100 meters of the M3 motorway between Basingstoke and Hook, all of which start and end up in the same place.

Yet vans, lorries, massive 4x4's and cars still insist on using the small B road when the motorway or A30 will get them there far safer, far quicker and far easier.

I just don't understand why the don't use the motorway.

 

[dobbslc]

Probably because they want to go somewhere the motorway doesn't.

 

[ajlelectronics]

You miss understand my point. A cycle lane running alongside a road will have the cyclist stop and give way at every junction, whilst the road traffic will proceed unhindered past the junction.

View attachment 540307
Cyclist gives way at every junction / obstruction whilst the traffic flows unhindered.

I think that you missed my point that I agreed with you. Cyclists are traffic and so the cycle lanes should be part of the carriageway, not footpaths.

 

[Cobbler]

I think that you missed my point that I agreed with you. Cyclists are traffic and so the cycle lanes should be part of the carriageway, not footpaths.

It’s very dangerous is how Gloucester just put red lines down the side of the road & called it a cycle track. Cars park on it so cyclists have to swing out into the flow of traffic & bollards in the centre means cars have to drive into the cycle lane because of the reduced width. A colleague used to cycle to work regularly & another danger was car’s stopping to let out a passenger, doors opened straight into his way, he used to reckon one day he would be removing a car door!

 

[DanZac]

I think that you missed my point that I agreed with you. Cyclists are traffic and so the cycle lanes should be part of the carriageway, not footpaths.

My apologies. Rereading your earlier post, I see exactly what you were saying.

 

[ajlelectronics]

It’s very dangerous is how Gloucester just put red lines down the side of the road & called it a cycle track. Cars park on it so cyclists have to swing out into the flow of traffic & bollards in the centre means cars have to drive into the cycle lane because of the reduced width. A colleague used to cycle to work regularly & another danger was car’s stopping to let out a passenger, doors opened straight into his way, he used to reckon one day he would be removing a car door!

Same thing happens on my motorcycle of course. Opening car doors without looking seems to be a modern trait. Make of that comment what you will.

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

doors opened straight into his way, he used to reckon one day he would be removing a car door!

Was speaking to someone at the weekend who had this happen
...he was saying recommended gap is 1m but in london that's not always possible

I lived in Amsterdam for 3 years and cycled everywhere...zero issues. In london I've never cycled...just too many nutters around.

 

[DanZac]

Was speaking to someone at the weekend who had this happen
...he was saying recommended gap is 1m but in london that's not always possible

I lived in Amsterdam for 3 years and cycled everywhere...zero issues. In london I've never cycled...just too many nutters around.

It's a vicious circle. If the cyclist leaves a meter between themselves and the cars, the motorists accuse them of taking up the whole lane and moan they can't get past, which leads to conflict, close passes and accidents.

It's either take your chances with someone opening a car door onto you, or face the wrath of the motorists behind.

Either way, the cyclist always looses.

(Helpfully folding mirrors help, because if you can see that the mirrors are folded away, the chances are the cars locked and thus the door won't get opened onto you).

 

[daleyd]

The "Chester law" regarding Welshmen is an urban legend stemming from a 1403 order by Henry, Prince of Wales, requiring all Welsh people to be expelled from Chester by sunset, with violators facing decapitation. While often cited as still active (or allowing, e.g., shooting with a bow), this is a myth; it has not been active for centuries and contradicts modern law. [1, 2, 3]

• Origin: The order was made on September 4, 1403, following the rebellion of Owen Glendower (Owain Glyndŵr) to secure the border city.
• The Myth: Popular, but false, urban legends claim it is still legal to shoot a Welsh person with a crossbow or longbow within the city walls after midnight.
• Reality: The law was never technically repealed, but it is entirely unenforceable and superseded by centuries of modern legislation, including the Human Rights Act.
• Historical Accuracy: While draconian at the time, records indicate that it was not consistently enforced, and a Welsh mayor was elected in 1408, just a few years later.
• Context: Similar false laws are often quoted regarding Scotsmen in York.
• Legal Standing: The Law Commission has confirmed that such ancient orders are invalid and it is illegal to harm anyone regardless of their nationality.

It's from an AI search, but I think it's pretty much correct....

 

[addjunkie]

I think that you missed my point that I agreed with you. Cyclists are traffic and so the cycle lanes should be part of the carriageway, not footpaths.

The majority of my driving has neither foot paths, cycle tracks or street lighting. We currently have a local bridge closed for 8 weeks, and a 30 mile diversion for heavy stuff. There is a single track road, high hedges, a few blind corners……and idiot cyclists still seem to think its sensible to ride two abreast around the blind corners heads down bum up. Only a question of time till one or maybe two are splattered. Obviously passing places are only for cars and vans as cyclists dont seem to know what they are for!