If you’re reading this, you missed it. Still available on i-player. Interesting take on those drivers who overtake then turn left.

Dam! Day off and a lie in! What time was it on?

Did he drone on and on and on and on and o…

He was also on Breakfast TV, about 8:30.

Given his mum died earlier this year in an accident involving a car, I think he can be let off any polar views he may have (not listened to the radio article in question), regardless of his profile from his own career.

Heard hom in R4 and disnt think it was one of hos best efforts(and I’m normally a big fan) perhaps because there are two seperate propsals. One- that I thought already exists, peds have right of way over turning vehicles and Two- vehicles turning should give way to those going straight on, this second point he didnt sell very well.

I missed it, but just caught the end of the morning segment at 9am when the idiotic presenter rear out:
“we’ve had a few emails regarding our earlier cycling segment .. Cyclists should be banned! They cause more delays and disruption that anyone else and enjoy holding everyone up”
then the program finished.

Thought better of Radio 4 than to read crap like that out.

Did he drone on and on and on and on and o…

…about improving road safety for cyclist? I do hope so. He’s made a positive improvement in conditions for cyclists. What’s your contribution?

The proposal about left turns is this
BC left turns
I’m not sure about it, but if it makes drivers think then that’s good.

Cyclists should be banned! They cause more delays and disruption that anyone else

Yeah! I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been stuck in a massive tail back behind a multiple vehicle pile up on a motorway (drivers of instigating vehicles obviously cyclists).

Those huge queues of cars at rush hour? All cyclists behind the wheel.

Broken down lorry on the motorway backing up traffic? Cyclist driving.

School run mums blocking driveways? All cyclists.

Taxi drivers crawling along, not indicating, faffing with their mobiles and generally driving like complete arseholes? Cyclists.

Funny how none of them are actually on their bikes whilst they’re causing all this delay and disruption, though. Hmm.

Have a listen to this bikebuoy (and anyone else interested): http://thebikeshow.net/tag/chris-boardman/

Nice chat about his views on advocacy and he shows his deadpan sense of humour.

They cause more delays and disruption that anyone else and enjoy holding everyone up

I am always genuinely baffled by how someone could actually look out of their car windows at all the traffic they are stuck in, made up overwhelmingly of people in cars doing exactly what they themselves are doing in their car, and conclude that the problem is… bikes?

Sign the petition for the junction rule change at

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20161206-campaigning-news-Chris-Boardman-leads-cycling–motoring-and-pedestrian-groups-in-call-for-junction-rule-change-0

😀

I am always genuinely baffled by how someone could actually look out of their car windows at all the traffic they are stuck in, made up overwhelmingly of people in cars doing exactly what they themselves are doing in their car, and conclude that the problem is… bikes?

A driver once complained to me about bikes holding up traffic when I was alongside him in a queue of cars. I asked him how many bikes he could see in front of him holding him up.

The look of panic and confusion on his face as he looked and said “None” was priceless. One of the few occasions I wished I had a helmet cam. Then I pedaled off through the traffic.

It was a fairly short segment, with the usual long winded questions that the Today presenters tend to favour, which didn’t give Chis Boardman much time to develop his argument. What he did get across was delivered in his usual measured and calm manner.

I did find myself having a some sympathy with the Road Haulage Association bloke’s point that it is another measure that will encourage cyclists to put themselves right at the most dangerous part of the road without really thinking of the consequences, like a lot of cycle lane designs do now.

Listened to it on R4 whilst stuck in traffic for an hour driving into work as I’ve got to pick all my clothes up today so couldn’t cycle in 🙁 Really must invest in some panniers.

Anyway the way the proposed changes were outlined on the radio were not overly clear. I had to think about it for a while and until I saw the diagram over on Road.cc it didn’t fully make sense. I do see the point of view that the road haulage guy put over. If you’re in a vehicle, indicating and trying to turn left there is a risk that suicidal cyclists will presume it’s their right of way. Even driving in today in a “normal” car in the wet and dark made it tricky to spot some people on bikes undertaking, which they’re entitled to do. I wouldn’t fancy doing it in an HGV.

How would it work with a right turning cyclist and a car (or many cars) going straight on?

Would the cyclist have to pull over and let the cars through until there was a big enough gap to get from the kerb to the side road in one move?

The rest of it is already in the Highway Code isn’t it? If a big part of the problem is that the Highway Code isn’t law and is therefore unenforceable then how does changing the Highway Code help?

A big part of the problem is drivers not indicating while waiting at a junction. The highway code says to “Mirror, Signal, Manouevre”. Too often it’s “Manouevre, Signal(optional). If a vehicle has no indicators flashing then a cyclist might well think that they are proceeding straight ahead. That doesn’t mean that it’s safe for the cyclist to filter up the left hand side of the vehicle.

Two things need doing:

1) enforce correct signalling behaviour by drivers.
2) educate cyclists not to filter through at junctions unless they are sure that the drivers are going to act on how they are signalling.

One won’t work without the other.

Edit. @bails – parts of the HC are backed by law, others are best practice. Basically if the rule contains “must” or “must not” then there’s a part in the relevant legislation about it. For rules that say “should” or “should not” then while breaking the rule isn’t breaking the law such behaviour would be taken into account in the event of an accident and the police/CPS looking at prosecuting.

parts of the HC are backed by law, others are best practice. Basically if the rule contains “must” or “must not” then there’s a part in the relevant legislation about it.

Yes, I know that, but changing the highway code doesn’t make something law. It’s the other way round, you need to change the Highways Act or something to then make something a “must” in the HC.

For rules that say “should” or “should not” then while breaking the rule isn’t breaking the law such behaviour would be taken into account in the event of an accident and the police/CPS looking at prosecuting.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you.

Finally on Day 6, the Judge [b]instructed the jury [/b]that:

“Highway Code guidance regarding sun glare (not law but could be used as evidence of driving without due care and attention) could be ignored”

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/recent-cases.html

How would it work with a right turning cyclist and a car (or many cars) going straight on?

Would the cyclist have to pull over and let the cars through until there was a big enough gap to get from the kerb to the side road in one move?

Have you actually read the link to the BC petition? If so, go back and read it again.

Have some fun adding comments to the BBC article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38248488

Have you actually read the link to the BC petition? If so, go back and read it again.

Yes. The article says:

The organisations propose consolidating and strengthening existing rules in the Highway Code so that, whether you are driving or cycling, you would be clearly obliged to give way when turning to people who are going straight ahead.

The petition says:

We’re calling for a universal rule that when turning at a junction, you always give way to people going ahead or crossing that junction, including people cycling and walking.

So, if I’m on my bike and turning right, do I have to give way to people in cars going straight on? Or do I follow the bikeability training and move out to the middle of the road and wait there?

I don’t think this is a bad idea,I just don’t think it’ll make any difference. It’s already illegal to drive in a mandatory cycle lane, yet the one (yes, a whole one!) near me is unusable at rush hour because it’s full of parked and moving cars. Partly because the council took a road that was just wide enough for two lanes of traffic, and then added painted a 2ft wide cycle lane, without shaving the necessary width off everybody’s cars.

Have some fun adding comments to the BBC article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38248488

280. Posted by Old Etonian Porcine Appreciation Society
on
7 minutes ago
I once saw a cyclist hit an old lady at a pedestrian crossing. She fell to the ground and instead of helping her up the cyclist picked up his bike and began to strike her with it. It wasn’t until he took off his helmet that I realised the cyclist was literally Hitler. After launching in to a brief diatribe about the eradication of Jews he jumped back on his bike and off he went! 100% true story

I reckon the reason people think “cyclists hold me up” is that when it’s just 10000 cars in a queue, there’s a feeling of normalisation, sure you’re stuck but so is everyone else. Add in 1 person still getting to where he’s going and suddenly feeling stuck feels worse.

wilburt – Member

One- that I thought already exists, peds have right of way over turning vehicles

IIRC, turning from a major to a minor pedestrians have right of way if they’re already in the road. Which is really just another way of saying “don’t run people over, ya dick”

the council took a road that was just wide enough for two lanes of traffic, and then added painted a 2ft wide cycle lane, without shaving the necessary width off everybody’s cars.

when you say 2 lanes do you mean it was a road with 2 marked lanes or it was a nice wide road that drivers realised it was *just* wide enough to unofficially use it as a 2 laner? (and incidentally make it a ****ing awful place to try to ride a bike? there are 2 similar roads near me, I know of what I speak – would love a bike lane on them)
If it was officially 2 lanes and now it’s 1 + a bike lane then I guess the local council have decided bike lane is more important that a standard lane, shift in priorities – just don’t expect joined up thinking and having something either end of this lane to link up some proper routes.

bails, I think you’re misunderstanding what they’re saying. For instance the meaning at a left turn clearly isn’t that you magically get out of the way of someone behind you. You obviously have to give way prior to moving right if cars are passing, but once you’re waiting to turn right, well, same as any other right turning vehicle (as it would be for turning left for the cars/bikes BEHIND (but not to the left of ) you.

If there was a bike lane running across the turn to the right, whether part of the carriageway or segregated, you would be obliged to wait for that to be clear.

It came across poorly on the radio from the small bit I heard, Chris Boardman kept using “they”, and I couldnt figure out if “they” were cyclist or the pedestrian.

These days I filter up stationary traffic on the right hand side due to having a few a few near misses and one incidence with people turning left into me.

These days I filter up stationary traffic on the right hand side due to having a few a few near misses and one incidence with people turning left into me.

wait till you’ve had a few none indicating right turns happen right in front of you – then you’ll just play it by ear, on gut feeling and conditions 🙂

hahaha you’ve got a point, probably only a matter of time…

when you say 2 lanes do you mean it was a road with 2 marked lanes or it was a nice wide road that drivers realised it was *just* wide enough to unofficially use it as a 2 laner?

No, genuine marked two lanes in each direction. Mind you, they’ve done the same with bus lanes. Painted them in such a way that the pedestrian refuges in the middle of the road make it impossible to avoid driving in them.

bails, I think you’re misunderstanding

Entirely possible, but isn’t that a problem? If I’m not clear on it, will the typical driver who hasn’t read the highway code since 1982 understand it?

If I’m driving and gaining on a cyclist who’s going the same way as me and signalling to turn right, I’m supposed to allow them to make that right turn:

Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

-approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

-when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled

But under the new rules do I now have priority and I should carry on overtaking? Would the current rule 167 or the new BC rules take precedence?

One way of looking at this is “will it get more people on their bikes”? If it will make a genuine difference to safety then it probably would. So go and find someone who won’t cycle/won’t let their kids cycle on the road because it’s “too dangerous”. Then tell them that the rules are changing, so that if you’re going straight on at a junction, a car turning would be supposed to let you go straight on. Now ask them if that’s changed their mind about cycling/letting their kids cycle on the road.

t was a fairly short segment, with the usual long winded questions that the Today presenters tend to favour, which didn’t give Chis Boardman much time to develop his argument. What he did get across was delivered in his usual measured and calm manner.

I did find myself having a some sympathy with the Road Haulage Association bloke’s point that it is another measure that will encourage cyclists to put themselves right at the most dangerous part of the road without really thinking of the consequences, like a lot of cycle lane designs do now.

I agree with most of this. Chris Boardman spoke well as usual in his reasoned manner, but couldn’t help but feel both sides had a valid point, and possibly this is where Boardman struggled a little? After all he is a spokesperson for BC, they are not necessarily his personal opinions.

Overall I felt Boardman made a good argument, but I’m still not 100% certain what the law would mean and the implications it may have. Though at the same time, I think anything that gives priority to vulnerable road users is a good thing.