# Changing cycling rules of the road



## mustang1 (6 Nov 2015)

These are just lightly thought out suggestions. What do you think?

1. Cyclists to give way if red light. If pedestrians are waiting to cross, or are anywhere near the read lights and might cross, you must stop. 

2. You must slow down at lights especially if there are poles or other obstructions that can hide people and especially kids at certain angles. Idk what "slows down" means technically, but for the way I would approach it is "if you collide with someone who just ventures out into the road, then you're to blame" and adjust your speed so you can stop in time. 

3. Zebra crossings. A car cannot be on a zebra crossing at the same time as a pedestrian but a cyclist can, as long as the cyclist passes slowly behind the person crossing the road. Proceed at a speed where, if the person crossing the road changes their mind and does a U turn, you better not collide with them otherwise its your fault. 

4. At red lights, if you think you cannot get to the front of the traffic before the lights go green, then stay back. There's no hotdog waiting for you at the traffic lights. Stay back, be safe. 

5. Cycling up one way streets towards traffic. Don't do it. Not really because of the car's coming towards you, but more because parked car drivers won't be expecting you and will pull out slightly without any regard for your presence. 

6. Should you cycle on the footpath? I would like to see this rule changed to yes but only if you cycle at jogging pace and the footpath is uncrowded. But there are too many variables and interpretations that will cause inconvenience to pedestrians so I'm afraid I have to say no to this one. But if there are no people around, then cycling at jogging pace should be ok. Bare in mind, if anyone walks out of their house or shop and collides with you, then its your fault. 

Sometimes the above happens when a bus, in the bus lane is pulled up next to a lorry in the adjacent lane, and it stays in this configuration for some time. Highly annoying for cyclists. 

7. Parking your bike. Don't park it at a lamp post with a loose fitting lock because soner or later your bike will fall over causing an obstruction for pedestrians.

8. Keeping the momentum going. When a hill is approaching, the cyclist will speed up to keep the momentum high and this reduce the effort required to climb the hill. If there is an obstruction or other danger prior to the hill, the cyclist will take a risk and keep the speed inappropriately high. Don't! If you have to slow down, slow down. If you have to lose momentum prior to the hill, so be it. 

9. Slippery stuff. When the roads are wet, the white paint is slippery. And metal covers/drains/etc are even worse. Look ahead and judge in plenty of time to avoid these. And especially at this time of year, avoid wet leaves. Not only are they super slippery but you never know what's lurking underneath them. Same going for puddles; you never know what's there. 

10. If reducing your speed affects your strava time, you're more likely to live another day. Try a more suitable route or time. 

11. Use lights. Day or nights. Use reflective clothes. Show the world you are there. Having said that, I do like the team sky and/or rapha gear which is in darker colours. Wear helmet. Wear gloves.


----------



## Drago (6 Nov 2015)

I don't think any changes should be considered for cyclists until the clear majority of cyclists learn to obey the existing rules, and theres a greater effort of enforcement against those that don't.

Then, and only then, should we ponce about with more rules or laws.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Nov 2015)

Drago said:


> I don't think any changes should be considered for cyclists until the clear majority of cyclists learn to obey the existing rules, and theres a greater effort of enforcement against those that don't.
> 
> Then, and only then, should we ponce about with more rules or laws.


Do the clear majority of drivers obey the rules on 30mph speed limits I wonder?


----------



## Markymark (6 Nov 2015)

More rules, more rules...


Just enforce the ones we have.


----------



## mjr (6 Nov 2015)

1 is known as "Idaho Stop" and sometimes suggested here,
2 seems already true even on green but widely disobeyed,
3 may be already true? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/25/made says walkers have precedence rather than exclusivity - in practice, a motorist can't cross safely until the walkers are well clear,
4 seems bad advice unless you enjoy being the meat in a nose-tail shunt sandwich - see the filtering discussions for more,
5 seems bad advice because two-way cycling on one-way streets is legal in many places ("except cycles" or so-called "false one-ways") and should be in many more,
6 is highly-debatably already true in some forms http://lcc.org.uk/articles/minister...ter-1057-fines-for-pavement-cycling-in-london but best not do it except as a last resort,
7 is already true,
8 is bizarre and I've not seen that, not even in hilly Somerset (but I guess the Mendips are big enough that you've no chance of charging over them!),
9 and 10 are fair enough but hardly a rule change,
11 is mostly bad advice but I'm sure there's plenty of DRL and hi-viz threads as well as the helmet one.

So only one good rule change there? Idaho stop.


----------



## summerdays (6 Nov 2015)

I'm not sure what rule change I would want from your list, but basically I would like presumed liability introduced and for everyone to slow down a little and be more considerate.


----------



## Brandane (6 Nov 2015)

I was about to give the OP a like, until I got to rule 11. Arghhhh .....!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Nov 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> More rules, more rules...
> 
> 
> Just enforce the ones we have.


Surely we are meant to self-enforce. 

The rules were introduced on the basis that the vast majority of those subject to them would simply comply as a matter of course.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (6 Nov 2015)

I am* not *putting lights on nor wearing hi-viz in broad daylight!


----------



## ianrauk (6 Nov 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I am* not *putting lights on nor wearing hi-viz in broad daylight!




The helmet preaching can do one too.


----------



## Old jon (6 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Do the clear majority of drivers obey the rules on 30mph speed limits I wonder?



If all us cyclists live in the same glass house, maybe throwing stones at others . . .


----------



## raleighnut (7 Nov 2015)

I always wear gloves but as for helmets.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Nov 2015)

Old jon said:


> If all us cyclists live in the same glass house, maybe throwing stones at others . . .


Which represents the greater threat (risk x impact) to other road users, a driver doing 40 in a 30 zone or a cyclist riding slowly on the pavement next to the road used by the speeding driver?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (7 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Which represents the greater threat (risk x impact) to other road users, a driver doing 40 in a 30 zone or a cyclist riding slowly on the pavement next to the road used by the speeding driver?



Depends on the circumstances.

If there was nothing else on the road and lots of pedestrians on the pavement then the cyclist on the pavement is the greater threat


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Nov 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Depends on the circumstances.
> 
> If there was nothing else on the road and lots of pedestrians on the pavement then the cyclist on the pavement is the greater threat


You do get how kinetic energy transfer works, right?


----------



## Profpointy (7 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You do get how kinetic energy transfer works, right?



did you miss the "if" in the post you are quoting ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Nov 2015)

Profpointy said:


> did you miss the "if" in the post you are quoting ?


in the same way as the "riding slowly" was missed in mine you mean?


----------



## Aravis (7 Nov 2015)

For me, No 4 is the most interesting.

If I can generalise slightly, when I know I'm going to be stopped by a red light all that really matters is that I get through the next time it turns green. Whether I get to the front of the queue beforehand is unimportant. Another consideration is finding a suitable bit of kerb or raised verge, meaning that I can wait comfortably and re-start in as straight a line as possible.

When approaching a red light, if there are a few cars already waiting, frequently I pull in behind them even though I could easily pass. At temporary traffic light in the countryside where there is unlikely to be a kerb or pavement I may even wait a few car lengths behind the last vehicle if I see a good waiting spot. And when the lights change I may wave through any cars that have pulled up after me before I get up to full speed.

The other side of the coin is that at some junctions the only available kerb is beyond the stop line, in which case I would make no apology for passing all the waiting vehicles and stopping there.


----------



## summerdays (7 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> For me, No 4 is the most interesting.
> 
> If I can generalise slightly, when I know I'm going to be stopped by a red light all that really matters is that I get through the next time it turns green. Whether I get to the front of the queue beforehand is unimportant. Another consideration is finding a suitable bit of kerb or raised verge, meaning that I can wait comfortably and re-start in as straight a line as possible.
> 
> ...


Waiting by the kerb means that you leave yourself at risk of being left hooked, I just put my foot down on the road or if not going to be too long do a mini track stand, but from a safer position away from the kerb.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (7 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You do get how kinetic energy transfer works, right?



You do get how to read a statement properly, right? 

Without changing any of the circumstances - explain to me how a car on an empty road poses more threat than a cyclist on a pavement with lots of pedestrians on it.


----------



## Aravis (7 Nov 2015)

summerdays said:


> Waiting by the kerb means that you leave yourself at risk of being left hooked, I just put my foot down on the road or if not going to be too long do a mini track stand, but from a safer position away from the kerb.


If you like to do track stands I don't think we occupy the same part of the cycling spectrum!

I've been using my approach since student days over 35 years ago with no problems that I can recall. Awareness of what is happening around you is paramount whatever your riding style, and I have always found that starting from what is already a balanced, seated riding position means I am giving maximum attention to whatever else is happening. I must be doing something that minimizes the risk you mention.

I'm sure that in reality, when faced with any particular road layout we all make a vast number of assessments without realising it, and act accordingly. That is experience.


----------



## summerdays (7 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> If you like to do track stands I don't think we occupy the same part of the cycling spectrum!
> 
> I've been using my approach since student days over 35 years ago with no problems that I can recall. Awareness of what is happening around you is paramount whatever your riding style, and I have always found that starting from what is already a balanced, seated riding position means I am giving maximum attention to whatever else is happening. I must be doing something that minimizes the risk you mention.
> 
> I'm sure that in reality, when faced with any particular road layout we all make a vast number of assessments without realising it, and act accordingly. That is experience.


I can't track stand or long but sometimes it saves me putting a foot down.


----------



## mjr (7 Nov 2015)

I can't track stand but I can use the back brake to move very very slowly and avoid putting feet down. I wouldn't stop at the kerb and the cycling proficiency courses that did were wrong to tell people to do so.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Nov 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> You do get how to read a statement properly, right?
> 
> Without changing any of the circumstances - explain to me how a car on an empty road poses more threat than a cyclist on a pavement with lots of pedestrians on it.


More kinetic energy. As a result of the speed and mass involved.

A slowly ridden bike has no more kinetic energy than a heavy pedestrian walking at the same speed.


----------



## boydj (7 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> If you like to do track stands I don't think we occupy the same part of the cycling spectrum!
> 
> I've been using my approach since student days over 35 years ago with no problems that I can recall. Awareness of what is happening around you is paramount whatever your riding style, and I have always found that starting from what is already a balanced, seated riding position means I am giving maximum attention to whatever else is happening. I must be doing something that minimizes the risk you mention.
> 
> I'm sure that in reality, when faced with any particular road layout we all make a vast number of assessments without realising it, and act accordingly. That is experience.


1. Cycle training says it is better to stop in the middle of the lane to prevent left hooks and to give you a chance to get some speed up before cars start passing you.
2. You may be starting from a 'balanced seated riding position', but you are still not fully stable until you have some speed on and therefore more vulnerable as cars are overtaking.


----------



## mustang1 (7 Nov 2015)

Brandane said:


> I was about to give the OP a like, until I got to rule 11. Arghhhh .....!!


I only added rule 11 because I saw a video a few days ago of this MTB guy going rather slowly, fell and got knocked unconcious. And the hi viz plus lights, well


GrumpyGregry said:


> Surely we are meant to self-enforce.
> 
> The rules were introduced on the basis that the vast majority of those subject to them would simply comply as a matter of course.


Yeah but the thing is the rules right now do not permit an Idaho stop and I agree with Idaho stops. I don't see why cyclists can't proceed on a red light. But if we want to get technical, I could approach a red light, do a cx dismount, run across the junction, the cx remount and be on my way. Sure I'd have to practice the unmount dismount, but I think its easily done. That's just an example.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Nov 2015)

mustang1 said:


> I only added rule 11 because I saw a video a few days ago of this MTB guy going rather slowly, fell and got knocked unconcious. And the hi viz plus lights, well
> 
> Yeah but the thing is the rules right now do not permit an Idaho stop and I agree with Idaho stops. I don't see why cyclists can't proceed on a red light. But if we want to get technical, I could approach a red light, do a cx dismount, run across the junction, the cx remount and be on my way. Sure I'd have to practice the unmount dismount, but I think its easily done. That's just an example.


Shared road space only works when the actions of those using it are predictable. Introduce unpredictability and subjective decision making around compliance and the whole system breaks down and people get hurt.

"I don't see why I can't" is a lousy, subjective argument in that context.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (7 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Shared road space only works when the actions of those using it are predictable. Introduce unpredictability and subjective decision making around compliance and the whole system breaks down and people get hurt.
> 
> "I don't see why I can't" is a lousy, subjective argument in that context.


My cycling instructor said "if we all behave the same drivers will know what to expect from cyclists".
I agree, valid for other cyclists too: if we would all keep to the left on cycle paths, for example, life would be so much easier, instead of guessing.
Another example: sometimes shared paths cross roads, there are pedestrian/bike lights. If the numpty cyclist on the road decides to skip the red, and I'm cycling across, crash!




Aravis said:


> I've been using my approach since student days over 35 years ago with no problems that I can recall. Awareness of what is happening around you is paramount whatever your riding style, and I have always found that starting from what is already a balanced, seated riding position means I am giving maximum attention to whatever else is happening.


Modern cycle training says we should take primary position (middle of the lane) at junctions, to be clearly seen by all traffic, and avoid being left hocked.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (8 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> More kinetic energy. As a result of the speed and mass involved.
> 
> A slowly ridden bike has no more kinetic energy than a heavy pedestrian walking at the same speed.



Read my posts back nice and slow...


----------



## Aravis (8 Nov 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> My cycling instructor said "if we all behave the same drivers will know what to expect from cyclists".





Pat "5mph" said:


> Modern cycle training says we should take primary position (middle of the lane) at junctions, to be clearly seen by all traffic, and avoid being left hocked.


The argument was about traffic lights, not junctions. My comments had particular emphasis on temporary traffic lights on the open road where you can be halted for some time. Most of my riding takes place over several hours and saving the odd second at traffic lights is not a consideration, but conserving energy by keeping comfortable when halted definitely is. Yes, that means I am effectively merging with the main flow when restarting, something we all have to be able to do safely. It seems like a good trade to me.

Your cycling instructor's comment sounds like a remote ideal rather than something he thinks ought actually to happen. The population of cyclists is extremely diverse.


----------



## summerdays (8 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> The argument was about traffic lights, not junctions. My comments had particular emphasis on temporary traffic lights on the open road where you can be halted for some time. Most of my riding takes place over several hours and saving the odd second at traffic lights is not a consideration, but conserving energy by keeping comfortable when halted definitely is. Yes, that means I am effectively merging with the main flow when restarting, something we all have to be able to do safely. It seems like a good trade to me.
> 
> Your cycling instructor's comment sounds like a remote ideal rather than something he thinks ought actually to happen. The population of cyclists is extremely diverse.


At temporary traffic lights I wait mid lane too, it's usually more important that cars don't try to pass you due to poor road surfaces, and narrow lanes in the section of road works. And if I've got cars behind me then it's good because the car coming the opposite way won't go when he can see a car coming but might if it's just a bike, and the timings of temporary traffic lights don't always allow for how long it takes for a bike to get through.

Honestly it may feel a little strange at first using primary position, but if used considerately then Most drivers don't seem to get annoyed, so in my above example I'd then try to let the following cars pass me as soon as it was safe beyond the temporary traffic lights by moving back closer to the kerb.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Nov 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Read my posts back nice and slow...


Happy to. Once you've answered my question and stopped moving the goalposts to suit your own pov. 


GrumpyGregry said:


> Which represents the greater threat (risk x impact) to other road users, a driver doing 40 in a 30 zone or a cyclist riding slowly on the pavement next to the road used by the speeding driver?


----------



## Dan B (8 Nov 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Depends on the circumstances.
> 
> If there was nothing else on the road and lots of pedestrians on the pavement then the cyclist on the pavement is the greater threat


Your faith in the protective power of a raised kerb is touching


----------



## 400bhp (8 Nov 2015)

Dan B said:


> Your faith in the protective power of a raised kerb is touching



And doesn't understand the concept that risk involves probabilities of all outcomes, not one.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2015)

How about cyclists becoming a little more patient. Almost all the rules involving motion seem to replicate the impatience we see in motorists every day. What are you gaining by not stopping at a Zebra for example? Seconds. Relax and enjoy the ride. 

And for rule 11,as Ian said "do one"


----------



## mjr (9 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> How about cyclists becoming a little more patient.


So people on bicycles must never need to get anywhere on time and should suffer all the same slowdowns in full while not having as high a top speed as motorists? If that happened, would many apart from health nuts and green freaks ride for transport and what would be the cost to the nation?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> How about cyclists becoming a little more patient. Almost all the rules involving motion seem to replicate the impatience we see in motorists every day. What are you gaining by not stopping at a Zebra for example? Seconds. Relax and enjoy the ride.
> 
> And for rule 11,as Ian said "do one"


Many cyclists unconsciously adopt the Mr Toad mindset. They have absorbed it with their mother's milk as it is one of the dominating philosophies in society.

It took me about five years, two of which were mostly on fixed/ss, and a lot of interaction with the FNRttC crew, before my road to Damascus. Which was actually the road to John O'Groats.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> So people on bicycles must never need to get anywhere on time and should suffer all the same slowdowns in full while not having as high a top speed as motorists?


Allow sufficient time for the journey. No one dies if you arrive early. Time pressure is an entirely human-made construct. Don't buy into it.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> So people on bicycles must never need to get anywhere on time and should suffer all the same slowdowns in full while not having as high a top speed as motorists? If that happened, would many apart from health nuts and green freaks ride for transport and what would be the cost to the nation?


What on earth has being patient got to do with getting somewhere on time?

If you want the same top speed as a car, get a car. 

Cyclists whinge on here about they want to be treated with respect by other road users and to be treated as bona fide road users but always with a caveat of "I'm special therefore I should be allowed to run red lights; go the wrong way up a one way street; ignore the rules regarding pedestrian crossings cos I'm on a bike innit". B*****ks


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Nov 2015)

If people on bikes need to get somewhere on time they should do what I do. Set off early enough.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Nov 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> If people on bikes need to get somewhere on time they should do what I do. Set off early enough.


This just about sums it up for me. I know how long different bike journeys take for me, both commutes and recreational rides. For commuting, I have work to factor in and I always allow plenty of time for a relaxed ride and post arrival faffing. For recreational riding - well, it's recreational FFS. It doesn't matter how long it takes, if I need to get it over quickly I always have the option of a shorter route, or not doing it at all. (Same applies for all modes of transport)


----------



## MissTillyFlop (9 Nov 2015)

Brandane said:


> I was about to give the OP a like, until I got to rule 11. Arghhhh .....!!




Indeed.

what a waste of batteries!


----------



## benb (9 Nov 2015)

I'd support a change in the law to allow cyclists to treat red lights as give way junctions.


----------



## Profpointy (9 Nov 2015)

benb said:


> I'd support a change in the law to allow cyclists to treat red lights as give way junctions.



Umm, we've got one of those now already haven't we ? :-)


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2015)

benb said:


> I'd support a change in the law to allow cyclists to treat red lights as give way junctions.


I'd support a change in the law that allows all road users to treat a red light as give way when turning left.


----------



## mjr (9 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Allow sufficient time for the journey. No one dies if you arrive eatly. Time pressure is an entirely human-made construct. Don't buy into it.





steveindenmark said:


> If people on bikes need to get somewhere on time they should do what I do. Set off early enough.





Dogtrousers said:


> I know how long different bike journeys take for me, both commutes and recreational rides.



It's not time _pressure_ but time is basically finite and immutable, whereas traffic rules are an entirely human-made construct. I leave sufficient time but if journeys become slower by changing the rules to make us behave like motor vehicles, or by banning two-way cycling on one-way streets where it's currently allowed, then what do you stop doing to give that extra time to cycling? Shouldn't we construct the traffic laws to enable and encourage physical activity?



martint235 said:


> Cyclists whinge on here about they want to be treated with respect by other road users and to be treated as bona fide road users but always with a caveat of "I'm special therefore I should be allowed to run red lights; go the wrong way up a one way street; ignore the rules regarding pedestrian crossings cos I'm on a bike innit". B*****ks


B'ks indeed! Every type of vehicle is treated as "special" by our traffic rules already. There's a safety argument for Idaho Stop as well as facilitating cycling, there's usually no legal justification for applying one-way motoring restrictions to cycling - in fact, "facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic" is a valid legal reason for changing many current one-ways to two-way for cycling, and what part of "the rules regarding pedestrian crossings" (for example http://highwaycode.info/rule/195 ) are ignored if you give way but cross the zebra markings well after any pedestrians have crossed? These things are genuinely different for cycles than motorists.

As several posts demonstrate, part of the problem with our traffic rules is that people think they know the rules that apply to cycling but in fact they are a bit confused and too proud to check in the Highway Code or laws.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> It's not time _pressure_ but time is basically finite and immutable, whereas traffic rules are an entirely human-made construct. I leave sufficient time but if journeys become slower by changing the rules to make us behave like motor vehicles, or by banning two-way cycling on one-way streets where it's currently allowed, then what do you stop doing to give that extra time to cycling? Shouldn't we construct the traffic laws to enable and encourage physical activity?


I can cycle 500km a week* easily, if I chose to, and have done so, regularly, within the framework of existing traffic laws. I'd prefer it if traffic laws are there to regulate traffic not promote some perceived moral good via a bizarre state-sponsored 21C version of two wheeled Kraft durch Freude.

If cycling on a given journey becomes slower because of factors outside your control you deal with it, you adapt and those adaptations may need to be made permanent. What do you have to stop doing? That is going to depend on the length of delay vs the length of the journey but it isn't going to add up to a significant amount of time lost. And you realise your time-efficiency argument is one beloved of motorists and the lobby groups that represent their interests when they want to promote greater car use and more road building don't you?

*OK I'm a lightweight.


----------



## mjr (9 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If cycling on a given journey becomes slower because of factors outside your control you deal with it, you adapt and those adaptations may need to be made permanent. What do you have to stop doing?


That time has to come from some activity. Do I have a smaller breakfast? Do I sleep less? Do I have less time for leisure? Do I work less? What would you not do if your commute was 10% longer and is it right that cyclists should have to make that unnecessary choice?



GrumpyGregry said:


> That is going to depend on the length of delay vs the length of the journey but it isn't going to add up to a significant amount of time lost.


That's a rather strange argument. When does it become significant? Is it significant if some journeys are five times longer because we're no longer allowed to cycle back down a one-way-for-motors street? Could we simply declare all delays insignificant and do whatever we fancy with the road system?



GrumpyGregry said:


> And you realise your time-efficiency argument is one beloved of motorists and the lobby groups that represent their interests when they want to promote greater car use and more road building don't you?


Yes - it's an argument that seems to work and be sufficient to overcome some very serious drawbacks to those outcomes, so it seems like a good argument for things that would make cycling easier and more attractive to more people.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> That time has to come from some activity. Do I have a smaller breakfast? Do I sleep less? Do I have less time for leisure? Do I work less? What would you not do if your commute was 10% longer and is it right that cyclists should have to make that unnecessary choice?
> .


People make those choices. Every day. Some of those choices are made because circumstances dictate that a person can't do what would be best to save their time. For example, a motorist who has been caught in traffic can't just travel at whatever speed they like on clear section of road.

What makes you special? I hope I'm wrong but you come across as wanting the world to revolve around you and you alone.

These rules tend to be made in the best interests of the many rather than the few. It's only when we change those rules that seem to be blockers that we realise why they were dreamt up in the first place.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> These rules tend to be made in the best interests of the many rather than the few.


Says @spockt235


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> That time has to come from some activity. Do I have a smaller breakfast? Do I sleep less? Do I have less time for leisure? Do I work less? What would you not do if your commute was 10% longer and is it right that cyclists should have to make that unnecessary choice?
> 
> 
> That's a rather strange argument. When does it become significant? Is it significant if some journeys are five times longer because we're no longer allowed to cycle back down a one-way-for-motors street? Could we simply declare all delays insignificant and do whatever we fancy with the road system?
> ...


So many questions...

You see mountains.
I see molehills.
We will have to agree to differ.


----------



## mjr (9 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> People make those choices. Every day.


Yes, wonderful, but what would you choose to leave out so because a cycle journey takes more time?


martint235 said:


> What makes you special? I hope I'm wrong but you come across as wanting the world to revolve around you and you alone.


No, not only me. I want traffic rules rebalanced to further encourage cycling because I believe that is in the best interests of the many. In many cases, the reasons for the current rules are recorded (for example, every recent one-way street Traffic Regulation Order / Traffic Management Order has to have a statement of reasons accompanying it; and many of the traffic laws were debated in parliament at the time). Often there isn't a good reason to restrict cycling as much as it currently is, but the orders/laws either didn't consider cycling, or in a few cases explicitly decided to favour motoring over cycling. I am also a motorist but I feel the balance is wrong at present.

At the moment, the top reasons why people cycle here are convenience, health and being faster than alternatives. Making cycling slower directly harms the last of those and indirectly the first.


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Yes, wonderful, but what *would you choose to leave out *so because a cycle journey takes more time?
> 
> No, not only me. I want traffic rules rebalanced to further encourage cycling because I believe that is in the best interests of the many. In many cases, the reasons for the current rules are recorded (for example, every recent one-way street Traffic Regulation Order / Traffic Management Order has to have a statement of reasons accompanying it; and many of the traffic laws were debated in parliament at the time). Often there isn't a good reason to restrict cycling as much as it currently is, but the orders/laws either didn't consider cycling, or in a few cases explicitly decided to favour motoring over cycling. I am also a motorist but I feel the balance is wrong at present.
> 
> At the moment, the top reasons why people cycle here are convenience, health and being faster than alternatives. *Making cycling slower directly harms the last of those and indirectly the first.*


Cycling isn't being made slower. Travel as a whole is. If I'm really desperate not to lose those few seconds that for example going around a one way system entails, I'll pedal faster for the rest of my journey.

Perhaps I'd lose some time at the beginning of my work day that I'd then make up by not using Cyclechat for 5 mins later in the day. Who knows.

At the end of the day, I choose where I live, I choose where I work and I choose how to traverse the distance in between. If for any reason, one of those factors severely interferes with my work life balance, I'll change it. It's what people do.


----------



## Markymark (9 Nov 2015)

Everything is taking longer. Tubes, driving cycling. Even walking seems to be as peopke wander around the pavements staring at their phones.


----------



## Profpointy (9 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> I'd support a change in the law that allows all road users to treat a red light as give way when turning left.



One obvious snag with that is if the people opposite have a right turn filter green light

EDIT
Another obvious snag is if the red is to allow pedestrians crossing, not cars. Few enough cars give way to pedestrians at junctions as it is, even though they're supposed to. Had a cyclist crossly posted on here (or the other place) because a pedestrian crossing a side road hadn't deferred to the cyclist's greater importance


----------



## martint235 (9 Nov 2015)

Profpointy said:


> One obvious snag with that is if the people opposite have a right turn filter green light
> 
> EDIT
> Another obvious snag is if the red is to allow pedestrians crossing, not cars. Few enough cars give way to pedestrians at junctions as it is, even though they're supposed to. Had a cyclist crossly posted on here (or the other place) because a pedestrian crossing a side road hadn't deferred to the cyclist's greater importance


I really don't see an issue with leaving things as they are. I'm really not in that much of a rush


----------



## Funkweasel (9 Nov 2015)

I am a car driverist first, cyclist second... in so much as I do way more driving than cycling. One is a necessity/laziness and the other is a pleasure/exercise thing. 
Next year, from the back end of winter/early spring I plan to commute to work (15+ miles each way via country lanes and horrible, yet unavoidable main A roads). 
If I avoid the main road as much as possible it'll probably be about 20 each way. I'm up for that challenge. 

I don't think any rules should be changed. I'm not exactly in favour of the turn left on red one, either. Mostly because where there's a T-junction, as soon as the lights turn red, the pedestrians cross, even if one then turns to green... if cyclists are proceeding (with caution (ha)) at that point then someone's going to get crashed into. 

Also it's never going to be safe to apply that to all light controlled junctions... and people in this country are just too stupid to be able to not ignore signs that say "no left turn on red", or don't say "left turn on red". At least in the USA where this (frankly awesome) rule is in place, they're conditioned to it and it works really well. Here, it wouldn't I'm sure, sadly. 

If you don't want to wear a helmet - don't. If you damage your brain because you hit your head... you can live with that. 
Similarly for lights - if you don't want to be more visible, then don't be. But don't complain if someone hits you as a result*. 

If people who ride bikes could behave themselves and follow the rules of the highway code, then maybe special treatment should be given to them... even though on the whole they tend to.... too many of them don't. 

*Not sure how this could be proved; maybe they just weren't paying attention anyway. 

The best course of action would be to separate cars, pedestrians and bicycles... but while we're forced to share the same spaces... we'll always be the bad guys.


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Do the clear majority of drivers obey the rules on 30mph speed limits I wonder?


How is that relevant?


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Nov 2015)

mustang1 said:


> These are just lightly thought out suggestions. What do you think?
> 
> 1. Cyclists to give way if red light. If pedestrians are waiting to cross, or are anywhere near the read lights and might cross, you must stop.
> 
> ...


Some fair points but as far as the "rules" you suggest (not the advice)... In my opinion, these all allow too much interpretation by Joe average. Also, I know its a cycling forum but they are all aimed at increasing rider convenience.i believe some things should be a little inconvenient to cyclists riding I busy cities, to maintain attention.


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Nov 2015)

User said:


> It is relevant because Drago was trotting out his "all cyclists need to behave before they get any goodies" line.


Still don't see a relevance.

So I should only stick to the rules if everyone else does?

I reckon, while im waiting for the rest of the world ill just start sticking to them myself for now


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> How is that relevant?


People who ride bikes are just road users like any other road users.
On their bikes they represent a tiny tiny threat to other road users.
The splendid @Drago was calling for all cyclists to obey the current rules and for them to be enforced with no call for the same to apply for those who represent the greater threat.


----------



## benb (9 Nov 2015)

I had the pleasure of cycling in Paris earlier this year.
Nearly every junction lets cyclists turn right on red (so equivalent of left on red here) and also you can go straight on on red at a junction if there is just a single road joining from the left.

It works really well, and they introduced it on a specific date with plenty of notice to allow people to get used to the idea.

So it can work, so I don't see why it wouldn't work here.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

benb said:


> I had the pleasure of cycling in Paris earlier this year.
> .
> .
> .
> So it can work, so I don't see why it wouldn't work here.


Because in Paris people who ride bikes are respected and the city had stunningly low KSI figures before the change?


----------



## benb (9 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Because in Paris people who ride bikes are respected and the city had stunningly low KSI figures before the change?



I don't see how KSI figures have any bearing on allowing cyclists to treat reds as give way. It would be the cyclists making the assessment as to whether it was safe to proceed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

benb said:


> I don't see how KSI figures have any bearing on allowing cyclists to treat reds as give way. It would be the cyclists making the assessment as to whether it was safe to proceed.


suggests, to me, and I may be wrong, that Paris was already a safer environment in which to cycle that, say, London was/is.


----------



## Markymark (9 Nov 2015)

I saw very few cyclists in central Paris conpared to Central london.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Nov 2015)

I think the KSI rate for Paris is comparable when you look at per mile traveled. The boast that Paris had no cyclist fatalities was based on a very small area.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Nov 2015)

"That time has to come from some activity. Do I have a smaller breakfast? Do I sleep less? Do I have less time for leisure? Do I work less? What would you not do if your commute was 10% longer and is it right that cyclists should have to make that unnecessary choice?"

My commute is 20kms and I start work at 6am. That means if I cycle, which is most of the time, I get up at 4.30am. If they moved work another 10km away I would take the car or the motorbike. But thats life. Its not just cyclists that have to make those decisions, the car drivers have to as well. You fit cycling in when you can.


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Nov 2015)

User said:


> No, that wasn't the point being made. Drago was suggesting that cyclists don't deserve any beneficial rule changes because, as a group, we don't behave. Greg was pointing out that other groups don't behave.


sure...so what is his point?

other groups dont behave, ...ok...so what?


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> People who ride bikes are just road users like any other road users.
> .


Ok


GrumpyGregry said:


> On their bikes they represent a tiny tiny threat to other road users.
> .


Fair enough, not sure where this is relevant but Ok.


GrumpyGregry said:


> The splendid @Drago was calling for all cyclists to obey the current rules and for them to be enforced with no call for the same to apply for those who represent the greater threat.


Why should there be?


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Nov 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I saw very few cyclists in central Paris conpared to Central london.



I was watching Chris Boardman on Danish TV yesterday. He was riding round Copenhagen and said " I have ridden round Copenhagen all morning and have not seen any lycra. Not a single cyclist. Just thousands of people going to work by bike".

I thought it was a pretty good observation.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I was watching Chris Boardman on Danish TV yesterday. He was riding round Copenhagen and said " I have ridden round Copenhagen all morning and have not seen any lycra. Not a single cyclist. Just thousands of people going to work by bike".
> 
> I thought it was a pretty good observation.


and only a tiny bit disingenuous. I saw, in decreasing order of rarity, space lemon, lycra and helmets every day.


----------



## Markymark (9 Nov 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I was watching Chris Boardman on Danish TV yesterday. He was riding round Copenhagen and said " I have ridden round Copenhagen all morning and have not seen any lycra. Not a single cyclist. Just thousands of people going to work by bike".
> 
> I thought it was a pretty good observation.


I hardly saw anyone on a bike in Paris.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Ok
> 
> Fair enough, not sure where this is relevant but Ok.
> 
> Why should there be?


Why, as in "on what justification", should people who ride bikes be singled out, or held to higher standards of behaviour, and, in particular, enforcement and sanction than other people who use the roads? Especially those other road users who represent significantly greater risks?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I hardly saw anyone on a bike in Paris.


3% modal share. They all walk or take the metro.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I think the KSI rate for Paris is comparable when you look at per mile traveled. The boast that Paris had no cyclist fatalities was based on a very small area.


roughly equivalent to London Zones 1 + 2 no? population of around 2 million?


----------



## mjr (9 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> roughly equivalent to London Zones 1 + 2 no? population of around 2 million?


Even if so, London zones 1+2 can't claim no fatalities


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Even if so, London zones 1+2 can't claim no fatalities


I don't ride there regularly anymore and when I did (mid- late-90's, & a short spell in 00's, cycling was an eccentric way to travel) 

But I wonder if left turn on red were to be introduced in 'central' how long it would be

a) before a cyclist turning left got wiped out by a speeding motor vehicle on green
-&-
b) before a pedestrian gets badly hurt by a cyclist who turns left without taking appropriate care (given the % that scatter pedestrians on light-controlled crossings today)


----------



## jonny jeez (9 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Why, as in "on what justification", should people who ride bikes be singled out, or held to higher standards of behaviour, and, in particular, enforcement and sanction than other people who use the roads? Especially those other road users who represent significantly greater risks?


Well, the OP wasn't singling anyone out...just suggesting some rules to aid or provide greater convenience for cyclists...but this isn't really the point.

The question you asked was do car drivers stick to 30MPH, well no, we know they don't. But that doesn't mean we should not live by the rules. Whether a car is more dangerous, or a cyclist is more at risk isn't relevant to the OP, or to the following of rules...sure its relevant to general safety and road use...but the OP wasn't commenting on this.

hence my question which I appreciate may appear like I'm being arsey, trust me I'm not...I'm just making a distinction that I don't consider it relevant.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Well, the OP wasn't singling anyone out...just suggesting some rules to aid or provide greater convenience for cyclists...but this isn't really the point.
> 
> The question you asked was do car drivers stick to 30MPH, well no, we know they don't. But that doesn't mean we should not live by the rules. Whether a car is more dangerous, or a cyclist is more at risk isn't relevant to the OP, or to the following of rules...sure its relevant to general safety and road use...but the OP wasn't commenting on this.
> 
> hence my question which I appreciate may appear like I'm being arsey, trust me I'm not...I'm just making a distinction that I don't consider it relevant.


Not taking it as you being arsey else I'd not bother replying.

I wasn't replying to the OP's post. I was replying to post #2. Hence I quoted post #2 in my reply. The same post #2 that you've given a 'like' to. The same post #2 that I think is tosh. The same post #2 that favours some sort of enforcement clampdown on people who ride bikes. And would appear to prioritise this over some sort of enforcement clampdown on those who represent an greater risk. And suggests that because some people on bikes behave badly nothing should be done for the other people on bikes who behave well because, as is well known in motoring circles "all you cyclists are the ruddy same".

Which is an interesting position to take, for someone in a cycling forum!


----------



## benb (10 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> suggests, to me, and I may be wrong, that Paris was already a safer environment in which to cycle that, say, London was/is.



Possibly, although as others have said, cycling rates in Paris aren't spectacular. But at least they are trying really hard to put in proper cycle lanes everywhere. When I cycled there, I found most drivers were OK, but they are very intolerant of taking primary - I got beeped at several times.

In any case, whether Paris was already a safe environment to cycle or not in has no relevance to whether allowing cyclists to go through reds would work in the UK.


----------



## Dan B (10 Nov 2015)

benb said:


> In any case, whether Paris was already a safe environment to cycle or not in has no relevance to whether allowing cyclists to go through reds would work in the UK.


Is this a variant of the "it wouldn't work here because we're not Amsterdam" argument, or something else?


----------



## martint235 (10 Nov 2015)

benb said:


> Possibly, although as others have said, cycling rates in Paris aren't spectacular. But at least they are trying really hard to put in proper cycle lanes everywhere. When I cycled there, I found most drivers were OK, but they are* very intolerant of taking primary - I got beeped *at several times.
> 
> In any case, whether Paris was already a safe environment to cycle or not in has no relevance to whether allowing cyclists to go through reds would work in the UK.


Was this because you were in primary though or because your average French driver thinks the horn button is what makes the engine go?


----------



## benb (10 Nov 2015)

martint235 said:


> Was this because you were in primary though or because your average French driver thinks the horn button is what makes the engine go?



I couldn't say, I don't speak forrin.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Nov 2015)

Dan B said:


> Is this a variant of the "it wouldn't work here because we're not Amsterdam" argument, or something else?


I was looking for a reason why it has worked in Paris....

It hasn't been adopted nationally in France though has it? No idea what to make of that.


----------



## benb (10 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I was looking for a reason why it has worked in Paris....
> 
> It hasn't been adopted nationally in France though has it? No idea what to make of that.



No, but it's only been in Paris for less than a year I think, so maybe they'll expand it.


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Because _*in Paris people who ride bikes are respected *_and the city had stunningly low KSI figures before the change?


I find this a bit hard to believe.

I've never cycled in Paris, but I have worked there, and "respect" just isn't something that Parisians tend to do to anyone. 

Of course you can refrain from killing someone without respecting them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Nov 2015)

Dogtrousers said:


> I find this a bit hard to believe.
> 
> I've never cycled in Paris, but I have worked there, and "respect" just isn't something that Parisians tend to do to anyone.
> 
> Of course you can refrain from killing someone without respecting them.


Having cycled and worked there I know where you are coming from.


----------



## jonny jeez (10 Nov 2015)

User said:


> You continue to miss the point. No one is saying that, because car drivers speed we should jump red lights. The objection is to drago's assertion that, because less than 100% of cyclists behave perfectly less than 100% of the time, cyclists shouldn't be given any new laws that might make life easier. The drivers speeding was to illustrate that singling out cyclists was not especially reasonable.


I'm not missing the point Adrian...i am disagreeing with it.


----------



## Markymark (10 Nov 2015)

So, in the planners office.... 

Cyclists sometimes break laws so they should not get anything new to help them along.

Cars break lots of laws and kill lots of people but lets build them all sorts of things to make their journeys quicker and easier.


----------



## jonny jeez (10 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Not taking it as you being arsey else I'd not bother replying.
> 
> I wasn't replying to the OP's post. I was replying to post #2. Hence I quoted post #2 in my reply. The same post #2 that you've given a 'like' to. The same post #2 that I think is tosh. The same post #2 that favours some sort of enforcement clampdown on people who ride bikes. And would appear to prioritise this over some sort of enforcement clampdown on those who represent an greater risk. And suggests that because some people on bikes behave badly nothing should be done for the other people on bikes who behave well because, as is well known in motoring circles "all you cyclists are the ruddy same".
> 
> Which is an interesting position to take, for someone in a cycling forum!


I understand all that and where we disagree is in the point that you make about "appearing to prioritise". I don't think post 2 does anything of the sort. There is no mention of any other body or their priority...that doesn't come into the discussion...untill you bring it up...which is what I disagree with.

Drago says, in Summary, lets get our own house in order before we start trying to improve it...you counter with...but other peoples houses are far worse than ours...so we shouldn't try to improve.
I think that perhaps, you are familiar with dragos posts and are colouring his words with past experience, rather than reflecting on what was actually posted, which is fine...I do that sometimes too but that's likely the basis of our disagreement


----------



## jonny jeez (10 Nov 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> So, in the planners office....
> 
> Cyclists sometimes break laws so they should not get anything new to help them along.
> 
> Cars break lots of laws and kill lots of people but lets build them all sorts of things to make their journeys quicker and easier.


Take a drive along the embankment in London, or the elephant and castle...or Tottenham court road...or Vauxhall...or probably a fair few more places.

I think that cycle safety is getting a fair amount of investment of late...not that I agree with their solutions which all seem to focus on segregation

Edit...in London at least


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Nov 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> I understand all that and where we disagree is in the point that you make about "appearing to prioritise". I don't think post 2 does anything of the sort. There is no mention of any other body or their priority...that doesn't come into the discussion...untill you bring it up...which is what I disagree with.
> 
> Drago says, in Summary, lets get our own house in order before we start trying to improve it...you counter with...but other peoples houses are far worse than ours...so we shouldn't try to improve.
> I think that perhaps, you are familiar with dragos posts and are colouring his words with past experience, rather than reflecting on what was actually posted, which is fine...I do that sometimes too but that's likely the basis of our disagreement


We live in a shared house. Someone leaving a coffee cup unwashed in the sink is not really up there with a fellow resident taking a dump on the bathroom floor and smearing it over the walls...


----------



## Markymark (10 Nov 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Take a drive along the embankment in London, or the elephant and castle...or Tottenham court road...or Vauxhall...or probably a fair few more places.
> 
> I think that cycle safety is getting a fair amount of investment of late...not that I agree with their solutions which all seem to focus on segregation
> 
> Edit...in London at least


In anyway proportional to what we pay in taxes? I cycle in London and cycles make up some 10% of road traffic. As much as 25% on some routes.


----------



## jonny jeez (10 Nov 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> In anyway proportional to what we pay in taxes? I cycle in London and cycles make up some 10% of road traffic. As much as 25% on some routes.


No sure...but it is an illustration of how times...and opinions...are changing.

Don't get me wrong I am sure there will be a catch, like a toll or something at some point but I do think that us London cyclists are experiencing something of a sea change in planning attitude's.

Just a shame they don't seem to ask actual cyclists to design the "improvements"...judging by the solutions


----------



## mjr (10 Nov 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Drago says, in Summary, lets get our own house in order before we start trying to improve it...you counter with...but other peoples houses are far worse than ours...so we shouldn't try to improve.


Actually, I'd counter with cycling improvements should not be withheld due to bad cycling any more than motoring improvements have been withheld due to bad motoring. I'm no more to blame for another cyclist's behaviour than I am for another motorist's.


----------



## jonny jeez (10 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Actually, I'd counter with cycling improvements should not be withheld due to bad cycling any more than motoring improvements have been withheld due to bad motoring. I'm no more to blame for another cyclist's behaviour than I am for another motorist's.


I prefer not to look at this as withholding, rather focussing on enforcing existing rules before we think about setting additional rules that will become just as unenforced...worse still allowing rules that are open to a persons interpretation.

This constant fascination with other people and their apparent lawlessness' is a red herring. What other people do, or how much damage they can cause is not relevant to this point.


----------



## liambauckham (10 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> We live in a shared house. Someone leaving a coffee cup unwashed in the sink is not really up there with a fellow resident taking a dump on the bathroom floor and smearing it over the walls...



you know this guy then? 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGPUtM1G2mM


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Nov 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> I prefer not to look at this as withholding, rather focussing on enforcing existing rules before we think about setting additional rules that will become just as unenforced...worse still allowing rules that are open to a persons interpretation.
> 
> This constant fascination with other people and their apparent lawlessness' is a red herring. What other people do, or how much damage they can cause is not relevant to this point.


What motorists do, and how they behave, on the roads we share with them, is not relevant?


----------



## colmcrowley (13 Nov 2015)

I agree with Drago -.no change until the current rules show they are being followed. In the hierarchy of safety we are less protected than cars or motorcyclists, but pedestrians would be at risk if cycles could cut through lights when pedestrians were crossing. Add to that the fact that most cyclists have no insurance and any injuries o pedestrians would be hard to tolerate. we cannot justify change because others ( cars ) break the rules. Two wrongs have never made a right.


----------



## Markymark (13 Nov 2015)

colmcrowley said:


> I agree with Drago -.no change until the current rules show they are being followed. In the hierarchy of safety we are less protected than cars or motorcyclists, but pedestrians would be at risk if cycles could cut through lights when pedestrians were crossing. Add to that the fact that most cyclists have no insurance and any injuries o pedestrians would be hard to tolerate. we cannot justify change because others ( cars ) break the rules. Two wrongs have never made a right.


A perfectly valid reason to halt all road building as cars brake lots of rules and kill lots of people.


----------



## boydj (13 Nov 2015)

colmcrowley said:


> I agree with Drago -.no change until the current rules show they are being followed. In the hierarchy of safety we are less protected than cars or motorcyclists, but pedestrians would be at risk if cycles could cut through lights when pedestrians were crossing. Add to that the fact that most cyclists have no insurance and any injuries o pedestrians would be hard to tolerate. we cannot justify change because others ( cars ) break the rules. Two wrongs have never made a right.


I would disagree on the no insurance bit - lots of cyclists have liability insurance through clubs, CTC, BC or household insurance.


----------

