Interesting article on the new highway code - The Specator

Do I need a stiff drink before clicking on that? It is the Spectator, after all.

Oh Jesus:

On one of my regular routes, a white ‘ghost bike’ is tied to a tree beside a junction in memory of a cyclist killed by a car at that exact spot. It serves as a reminder to be considerate of motorists whenever I pant my way past; inviting their ire, however unintentionally, is simply not worth the risk.

I mustn't momentarily upset car drivers or they might kill me.

He also clearly doesn't understand primary position, or its purpose. You do it when it is actually unsafe for a vehicle to pass you, eg approaching a pinch point. Not all the time.

hmmm, my experience (and I believe the evidence supports me, which is why the highway code was changed) is that the closer I ride to the kerb the more close passes I get, the more drivers think they can squeeze pass me and the more danger I am put in. Whether or not that makes drivers happy or not I frankly couldn't give a sh*t.

the closer I ride to the kerb the more close passes I get, the more drivers think they can squeeze pass me and the more danger I am put in.

This. I use road positioning to control the traffic behind me. I'll pull close to the kerb when I reckon it's safe to do so.

This. I use road positioning to control the traffic behind me. I’ll pull close to the kerb when I reckon it’s safe to do so.

+1

I ride a bike, a motorbike and drive like this too.

The author of that article really, really makes me want to circumvent the swear filter.

You would think "a member of the brotherhood of Lycra" would be aware of what is and what isn't in the new Highway Code

Cyclists can now ride in the middle of the road

Not true.

We are permitted to ride two abreast; we are entitled to ignore cycle lanes.

Not new.

the closer I ride to the kerb the more close passes I get,

Reminds me that a chap near me posted loads of videos on Twitter of close passes on him. Roads I never have any problems on. But then I don't ride in the gutter.

The author, Jake Wallis Simons, needs to learn to ride 'defensively', otherwise he's increasing his chance of an accident.

He's too busy trying to mentally frame himself as one of the 'good' cyclists who don't dare get in the way of the almighty car.

anyone that writes for the spectator is the thunder****, the prosecution rests your honour.

anyone that writes for the spectator is the thunder****, the prosecution rests your honour.

I second that. All those in favour?

Aye

It starts well with the photo of the cyclist. Not just in the middle but on the wrong side for a co.uk publication.
Goes downhill rapidly after that.

It's click bait so I'm not going to read it. I'm sure the Spectator will get by without my advertising $$$.

I really have to bite my lip when people start whinging on about “weekend” cyclists holding everyone up.

Everyone is quite happy to overlook the hundreds of thousands (millions?) if car journeys each weekend by people driving to do their sport / sit in a stadium drinking lager, but a person on a bike, not producing any carbon or emissions - BURN THEM.

The whole attitude of the (most) British people to active travel / cycling is antediluvian.

the closer I ride to the kerb the more close passes I get, the more drivers think they can squeeze pass me and the more danger I am put in

It's an invitation. It says pass me, pass me, pass me, please. As a driver it makes me really uncomfortable when people do this because it puts me under pressure to pass even if I don't feel it's safe to do so. If you don't, you're refusing the invitation. There's a psychological process here that makes it very hard not to take that invitation and squeeze through the gap.

^ I was going to dispute that but you're right. I've done it in less enlightened times albeit with a speed differential of another cyclist overtaking. Now I just don't, it's not worth the risk to the cyclist as they're always going to come off worse if something goes wrong.

Poor article IMHO but the intent I think is actually right.

I agree that there are times when taking primary is the right and safe thing to do. At other times though I think riders take primary as 'a right' when riding closer in is no less safe and optically it's better, which in turn leads to less anger and less chance of a punishment pass.

That's not saying it in any way justifies motorists getting wound up or taking it out on us, but avoiding 'deliberately' winding them up is one of the tools in our safety arsenal.

There have been times when leading a club ride where we will single out but ride more towards primary even though it actually makes it harder for cars to pass, they'll still need to use the other lane but it's doubled the length, but we do it because of the optics. Probably wrong and get flamed for it but if the car behind is happier and less likely to do something stupid as a result, that's the intent.

Well, I don't know The Spectator and it sounds as if I don't want too. I did clock that it wasn't particularly well written, but I was interested that, for him, it didn't feel safe to cycle in accordance with some of the rights in the new Highway Code (I do cycle defensively and try and control the traffic, but am aware that, at times, this just makes things worse).

My particular thing is roundabouts where I still religiously give way to the right despite, technically being afforded right of way due to the new hierarchy of vulnerability. I just can't see drivers accepting this and tend to feel that it's asking for conflict.

Well, I don’t know The Spectator and it sounds as if I don’t want too

If it helps Johnson used to be its editor.

My particular thing is roundabouts where I still religiously give way to the right despite, technically being afforded right of way due to the new hierarchy of vulnerability

How do you mean?
Whilst the rules now say be more careful and cyclists/others can stay in the left all the way round there is nothing changing the give way to the right when entering rule.

Whilst the rules now say be more careful and cyclists/others can stay in the left all the way round there is nothing changing the give way to the right when entering rule.

Perhaps I've misunderstood things then, I thought that I'd read somewhere that the new hierarchy of vulnerability gave right of way at junctions and roundabouts to the more vulnerable. I clearly need to recheck that.

-- Edit --

Yep, I see where I went wrong, the correct wording is "You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout." (i.e those that had already entered it). On other sites it's written as "at roundabouts".

I clearly need to pay more attention to the changes.

IIRC the change with roundabouts is mainly that unlike motor vehicles, cyclists can now turn right in the left hand lane. Thus you give them priority to continue past the next exit. I suspect this is partly designed to allow for the introduction of Dutch style roundabouts where cyclists almost always have a segregated lane with priority on the outside.

There have been times when leading a club ride where we will single out but ride more towards primary even though it actually makes it harder for cars to pass

We do that on single track roads as well. There's not a hope in hell of passing singled up or side by side but hopefully, there's less chance of winding others up if we appear to give a sh1t.

Oh and 'optics'? Yeah I know it's trendy business/forces/politicians bullshine but they really belong behind a bar/in a telescope not for cycling chat 🙃

IIRC the change with roundabouts is mainly that unlike motor vehicles, cyclists can now turn right in the left hand lane. Thus you give them priority to continue past the next exit.

OK idea in principle, scares the shit out of me in reality. If they want dutch-style segregation, introduce it - I'll be in the centre of the lane I'd take as a car driver.