# My workmate: "I think cyclists should be forced to use the cyclepaths and take a test"



## downfader (24 Jan 2015)

Had a bad morning this week going into work, cut up bad in icy weather and saw all kinds of mad malarky on the road. So I told one workmate about it only for another to interject "I think cyclists should be forced to use the cyclepaths and take a test!!"

My reply was thus: "Have you ever ridden on a cycle path?"
Her: "No..!"
Me: "..so you have never had your tyre shredded by the glass that some has thrown down?"
Her, aggressively: "Not my problem. You should still have to pass a test!"
Me: "Have you taken a test for driving?"
Her: "Yes."
Me: "And what about all those drivers who have caused crashes?"
Her: "...eeerrrrrr...?"
Me: "Didn't also break the law and get a speeding fine?"
Her: "I didnt have to pay the first fine..."
Me cutting her off: "Because they put on on a driver training course about speed. You had to do extra training. And then still broke the law."

Two of my workmates were stood there laughing. She just sauntered away grumbling.


----------



## runner (24 Jan 2015)

I often find at work that those who do not cycle are always up for an argument and have an opinion why they hate cyclists. I had a work colleague who for many a year was always up for an argument and always eager to vent his hatred towards me and cyclists in general. On the day of his retirement just before he left he came up to me and said he had a secret to impart....he had not only bought a bicycle but all the gear to go with it!! So i believe that those who say they hate cyclists do so out of a form of envy and sooner or later will not only agree with us but happily join us


----------



## burndust (24 Jan 2015)

I've had the debate about cycle paths many times...I don't have a problem with them as long as they're safe and sensible which most are not


----------



## S.Giles (24 Jan 2015)

burndust said:


> I've had the debate about cycle paths many times...I don't have a problem with them as long as they're safe and sensible which most are not


It's also handy if they don't meander off in the opposite direction to where you're trying to go (which most seem to do).


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jan 2015)

I had one who complained about cyclists holding up traffic and jumping red lights.....

Two seconds says I.........and inserted that morning's video card to the PC in the staff room that shows him overtaking at the hospital entrance, then pulling a left hook through the red light.

"So I held you up by slowing as the lights changed to a red light, which then "forced you" to pull a dangerous manoeuvre and jump the red light some time after it had changed"? 

Apparently I had no right to show the video, and he was really rather upset that he was not getting any sympathy for his actions.

However he never ever complains about cyclists in front of me any more!


----------



## S.Giles (24 Jan 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> I had one who complained about cyclists holding up traffic and jumping red lights.....
> 
> Two seconds says I.........and inserted that morning's video card to the PC in the staff room that shows him overtaking at the hospital entrance, then pulling a left hook through the red light.
> 
> ...



_...and needless to say, I had the last laugh!
_
(Sorry, I couldn't resist an A.P. reference!)


----------



## SpokeyDokey (24 Jan 2015)

Good idea re the test for cyclists. And they should have mandatory insurance.


----------



## Turbo Rider (24 Jan 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Good idea re the test for cyclists. And they should have mandatory insurance.



And high viz...so they can be monitored when breaking the law.


----------



## albion (24 Jan 2015)

"I think cyclists should be forced to use the cyclepaths and take a test!!"

So what made you think she was actually thinking?
Best I can come up with for her is 'dumb minds are parrot like'.


----------



## summerdays (24 Jan 2015)

Too many of my colleagues cycle for the non cyclists to want to make anything of it, we are more likely to get into an argument about the way other people cycle instead, such as whether bus lanes are good or bad, and should you use ASL's. There are even a couple of bikes (mostly but entirely folders) tucked into little holes around the office.


----------



## TheDoctor (24 Jan 2015)

Motorists should be forced to use motorways?


----------



## gazza_d (24 Jan 2015)

Easy reply to counter the "cyclists must take a test" line, it to agree and suggest to make practical cycling experience a mandatory part of the driver training and school curriculum

Always shuts them up.


----------



## Saluki (24 Jan 2015)

downfader said:


> Had a bad morning this week going into work, cut up bad in icy weather and saw all kinds of mad malarky on the road. So I told one workmate about it only for another to interject "I think cyclists should be forced to use the cyclepaths and take a test!!"



I had one of these when I had a proper job at nPower. I told her that I had taken a test. I took, and passed the cycling proficiency test in 1975. I also took and passed my motorcycle test in 1981 and, in addition, took and passed my car driving test in 2000. I suggested that when she had a driving licence and was no longer a passenger in a car or bus, she could then state her opinions on people's roadcraft.

Happily, I managed to say this into a 'hush' in the staff-room before work. Several people cheered.


----------



## dodgy (24 Jan 2015)

Had a few comments from work colleagues, most recently from a guy who has literally just taken up cycling, he was lecturing me the other day that helmets should be mandatory.

There is no escape.

@downfader, your twitter stream seems to be a an ebay spamming tool of late, your account compromised? I had to unfollow.


----------



## J1780 (24 Jan 2015)

Waste of time arguing the point with the cyclist haters. They are not for changing. For the most part they are ignorant clowns who are suffering from an overwhelming sense of entitlement a bizarre belief that they as in drivers and drivers alone paid for the roads through something called road tax whatever that is. These idiots also seem to believe that cyclists don't drive at all above all they are impatient and that's the real problem they are intent on getting where they want to go and to hell with everyone else. Its most likely they curse at slower drivers too mumbling some trash about 'them' re sitting the test. Cyclists are not blameless there's plenty of clowns on bikes too but these peoples attitudes towards cyclists won't change until something else comes along for them to rant about. Rant over.


----------



## further (24 Jan 2015)

I took a cycling proficiency test at junior school,don't they do that now ?


----------



## downfader (24 Jan 2015)

Saluki said:


> I had one of these when I had a proper job at nPower. I told her that I had taken a test. I took, and passed the cycling proficiency test in 1975. I also took and passed my motorcycle test in 1981 and, in addition, took and passed my car driving test in 2000. I suggested that when she had a driving licence and was no longer a passenger in a car or bus, she could then state her opinions on people's roadcraft.
> 
> Happily, I managed to say this into a 'hush' in the staff-room before work. Several people cheered.


My other workmate came out with the "you should pay roadtax" nonsense too this week. I asked her if she drove. She said no, her husband drives her everywhere. "So YOU personally dont pay any of this nonexistant tax?" 

"No I don't.. wait what..? Nonexistant?"

I then informed her Churchill got rid of it in 1937. Both these women got VERY confused when corrected. My responses werent aggressive, just deadpan "not this again.." 
I've also done cycle training. 1991. School teacher, ex advanced motorcyclist, pretty sure also an ex-copper,& big fan of vehicular cycling took us through what was essentially cyclecraft type material. Passed that first time. Probably the only time I can say that in my life, LOL


----------



## downfader (24 Jan 2015)

dodgy said:


> @downfader, your twitter stream seems to be a an ebay spamming tool of late, your account compromised? I had to unfollow.



Ahh sorry matey. Been trying to promote some cheap stuff that might help local riders, photographers and musicians. I'll stop that soon I promise!


----------



## Piemaster (24 Jan 2015)

runner said:


> I often find at work that those who do not cycle are always up for an argument and have an opinion why they hate cyclists. I had a work colleague who for many a year was always up for an argument and always eager to vent his hatred towards me and cyclists in general. On the day of his retirement just before he left he came up to me and said he had a secret to impart....he had not only bought a bicycle but all the gear to go with it!! So i believe that those who say they hate cyclists do so out of a form of envy and sooner or later will not only agree with us but happily join us


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Gandhi


----------



## downfader (24 Jan 2015)

Piemaster said:


> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
> - Gandhi



This has some air of truth in it. A friend also used to go on about "cyclists this, cyclists that" to me (always the same bloody story too haha). He rides a bike now.


----------



## nickyboy (24 Jan 2015)

I think there is a logical argument for mandatory testing for cyclists. Every other (other than horse riders?) road user has to so why not? Basic stuff about road signs, road markings, safety awareness and a test of bike handling.

Cycle paths? Sure, when they are maintained and cleaned to the same standard as roads. Until then, no way


----------



## Drago (24 Jan 2015)

There are logical arguments for all sorts of things. Doesn't make any of them right or desirable.


----------



## downfader (24 Jan 2015)

nickyboy said:


> I think there is a logical argument for mandatory testing for cyclists. Every other (other than horse riders?) road user has to so why not? Basic stuff about road signs, road markings, safety awareness and a test of bike handling.
> 
> Cycle paths? Sure, when they are maintained and cleaned to the same standard as roads. Until then, no way


You could argue that many pedestrians dont seem to know what a green man signal is on that slant.... How far should we take this, or should we all just get off our backsides and read the highway code regardless?


----------



## nickyboy (24 Jan 2015)

Drago said:


> There are logical arguments for all sorts of things. Doesn't make any of them right or desirable.



That's correct. But if cyclists are going to rub along with other road users perhaps the argument for compulsory testing needs to be countered more effectively than just saying "no"


----------



## Drago (24 Jan 2015)

And how will compulsory testing stop cars from left hooking cyclists, or make cyclists any more likely to use lights at night? Testing only works as a concept, a sop to appease the anti-cycling brigade rather than a genuine tool for changing the status quo.

The best and simplest way to deal with the anti cycling gobshites is to simply ignore them.


----------



## Hip Priest (24 Jan 2015)

I've had a few ignorant comments from work colleagues. I just ignore it really. I'm quite happy for a motorist to hate cyclists, as long as they don't express that hate through threatening behaviour on the roads.


----------



## summerdays (24 Jan 2015)

nickyboy said:


> I think there is a logical argument for mandatory testing for cyclists. Every other (other than horse riders?) road user has to so why not? Basic stuff about road signs, road markings, safety awareness and a test of bike handling.
> 
> Cycle paths? Sure, when they are maintained and cleaned to the same standard as roads. Until then, no way


So if we have our triangular Cycling Proficiency still we are OK?


----------



## nickyboy (24 Jan 2015)

Drago said:


> And how will compulsory testing stop cars from left hooking cyclists, or make cyclists any more likely to use lights at night? Testing only works as a concept, a sop to appease the anti-cycling brigade rather than a genuine tool for changing the status quo.
> 
> The best and simplest way to deal with the anti cycling gobshites is to simply ignore them.



So in that case should we do away with the driving test? Testing to a basic minimum competence either is beneficial or it isn't. If it is, other road users should be subject to it , if it isn't then nobody should be


----------



## downfader (24 Jan 2015)

nickyboy said:


> That's correct. But if cyclists are going to rub along with other road users perhaps the argument for compulsory testing needs to be countered more effectively than just saying "no"


..and that has been countered many times. The problem isnt the testing, its the mode of transport, the extra power, the exclusion from your environment, the ability to distract yourself....

..read Professor Ian Walker's articles and research on this.


----------



## nickyboy (24 Jan 2015)

downfader said:


> ..and that has been countered many times. The problem isnt the testing, its the mode of transport, the extra power, the exclusion from your environment, the ability to distract yourself....
> 
> ..read Professor Ian Walker's articles and research on this.



That's fine....I like nice, logical arguments to counter other arguments. I'll take a look. Why can't cyclists use stuff like that rather than just saying "no" or, even worse, using the "so you want pedestrians testing too, huh?" straw man. That sort of approach does the cycling community no favours


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2015)

nickyboy said:


> So in that case should we do away with the driving test? Testing to a basic minimum competence either is beneficial or it isn't.


Perhaps the benefit of ensuring competence is in some way proportionate to the degree of risk/danger that the road user wishes to introduce by his choice of vehicle.

So, for example, HGV drivers are currently held to higher standards than car drivers. Perhaps we should do away with that additional test if one size really does fit all kinds of road user?


----------



## nickyboy (24 Jan 2015)

Dan B said:


> Perhaps the benefit of ensuring competence is in some way proportionate to the degree of risk/danger that the road user wishes to introduce by his choice of vehicle.
> 
> So, for example, HGV drivers are currently held to higher standards than car drivers. Perhaps we should do away with that additional test if one size really does fit all kinds of road user?



What you're suggesting sounds very sensible to me. A level of testing linked to the risk/danger of the vehicle. Of course that would mean that cyclists would be subject to _some_ testing


----------



## Ridelegalforfun (24 Jan 2015)

I may be one of only two regular cycle commuters in our office, but we get nothing but light-hearted banter and certainly no agro from non-cyclists. The security guard is from rural Somerset and can sound critical of riders among his horror at London behaviour on Southwark's roads, but it's the cabbies trying to door me, buses and vans failing to give way and pushy drivers abusing ASL and pinch points that I take on daily.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2015)

If the going rate to insure a new driver against third party claims is around £1000 and the equivalent insurance for cyclists comes free with a £30 membership of a cycling organization, and if the actuaries have at least a reasonable grasp of the comparative risks involved, what test regime do you think appropriate for requiring of cyclists? 

Because my suspicion is that it would cost more to administer than any benefit resulting


----------



## flake99please (24 Jan 2015)

I would happily sit a cycling test. I see 20+ incidents of poor cycling (and an equal/greater amount of poor driving) in the city daily, and I believe a test would benefit cyclists and other road users alike if it were mandatory. A nominal fee could be charged, and those 'licensed' would then have 3rd party liability insurance for cycling included in their test fee. I also believe that all cycles should be registered with the DVLA or similar. 

On the point of cycle lanes on public highways, I dont agree with them. I feel that they have created a them and us culture between cyclists and other road users.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2015)

I can't see how anything that discourages idiots from switching from car to bike is going to improve road safety


----------



## nickyboy (24 Jan 2015)

Dan B said:


> If the going rate to insure a new driver against third party claims is around £1000 and the equivalent insurance for cyclists comes free with a £30 membership of a cycling organization, and if the actuaries have at least a reasonable grasp of the comparative risks involved, what test regime do you think appropriate for requiring of cyclists?
> 
> Because my suspicion is that it would cost more to administer than any benefit resulting



You're obviously a young guy if you think £1K is a normal 3rd party premium! £200-£300 is nearer the mark once you're knocking on a bit so you're probably talking about 10% of the cost for a cyclist for insuring the same risk. Obviously we are talking about the potential to cause damage here. Testing to mitigate risk of injury to the testee is a different matter


----------



## nickyboy (24 Jan 2015)

Dan B said:


> I can't see how anything that discourages idiots from switching from car to bike is going to improve road safety


Calling other road users "idiots" isn't particularly helpful


----------



## downfader (24 Jan 2015)

flake99please said:


> I would happily sit a cycling test. I see 20+ incidents of poor cycling (and an equal/greater amount of poor driving) in the city daily, and I believe a test would benefit cyclists and other road users alike if it were mandatory. A nominal fee could be charged, and those 'licensed' would then have 3rd party liability insurance for cycling included in their test fee. I also believe that all cycles should be registered with the DVLA or similar.
> 
> On the point of cycle lanes on public highways, I dont agree with them. I feel that they have created a them and us culture between cyclists and other road users.


There is nothing stopping you from taking a training course now. The point is does it make things better, safer for the mode of transport you've chosen? 

Lets take this down the mandatory route hypothesis. That would require a change in legislation to remove a cyclist's right to use a bike without said test. No matter what age. Legislation requires money - to both draft and test said law and to enforce it. IIRC the mobile phone ban whilst driving cost the taxpayer some £400m under the Blair adminstration. That was 10 years ago now. A similar law could cost double. 

And we all know how little time the Police have for the current raft of people who drive whilst chatting on their phone...

Also remember the DVLA no longer really exist. Certainly not in the way it used to. It was chopped at and restructured recently. To bring in another potential 4 million or so cyclists into their records to be administrated and documented would take both an expensive transition period and the need for extra taxpayer's money. 

Cycle lanes dont create the them and us. People do. People who wont educate themselves on modernity, eg how many drivers have reread the highway code? How many dog owners on animal legislation? How many bloggers on the communications act. I could go on... in reality a GOOD cycle lane or path (and christ knows there are many bad ones) actually makes towns and cities more efficient.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2015)

nickyboy said:


> You're obviously a young guy if you think £1K is a normal 3rd party premium! £200-£300 is nearer the mark once you're knocking on a bit so you're probably talking about 10% of the cost for a cyclist for insuring the same risk. Obviously we are talking about the potential to cause damage here. Testing to mitigate risk of injury to the testee is a different matter


I said "new driver", not "someone who is knocking on a bit". That £30 third party cycle insurance is available to anyone over the age of 16


----------



## MrPie (24 Jan 2015)

Nobber. Simples.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2015)

nickyboy said:


> Calling other road users "idiots" isn't particularly helpful


Some of them are.


----------



## TheDoctor (25 Jan 2015)

It's perfectly simple. Pedestrians, horses, cyclists etc use the roads as of right.
Motorists can be tested and pay to gain a licence to use our roads if they wish.
None the less, they're our roads. They don't belong to motorists.


----------



## S.Giles (25 Jan 2015)

I've always thought that a compulsory refresher lesson (or two) for drivers every two or three years would be of great benefit. It would help correct bad habits and refresh the memory regarding various aspects of road safety (including regard for cyclists' welfare). If all is well, then the instructor (no need for an examiner to do it) would 'sign-off' the driver for another couple of years.

I'm guessing this has never been considered because it wouldn't be a great vote-winner for politicians, who are more concerned with their chances of being re-elected than they are with road safety.

Steve


----------



## classic33 (25 Jan 2015)

nickyboy said:


> What you're suggesting sounds very sensible to me. A level of testing linked to the risk/danger of the vehicle. Of course that would mean that cyclists would be subject to _some_ testing


Would the one test fit all cyclists?
Bear in mind that not all cyclists use two wheels. And should someone who cycles using a cargo cycle sit an additional test?


----------



## youngoldbloke (25 Jan 2015)

classic33 said:


> Would the one test fit all cyclists?
> Bear in mind that not all cyclists use two wheels. And should someone who cycles using a cargo cycle sit an additional test?


Obviously - HGC, like HGV drivers do


----------



## Arrowfoot (25 Jan 2015)

Its more efficient for some categories of traffic offenders whether they are motorists or cyclists to go for a refresher or a test rather than vast majority of road users who know what they are doing.

There are 2 things that are a frequent bug bears of motorists -

Cycle lanes / path - most cyclists use it when they are usable and safe. But many in the motoring community have no idea that some cycle paths and lanes are dangerous and thus the need to venture out. And also when they have to move to other lanes to execute turns or go past a stationary vehicle etc.
The act of taking a primary - this is the least understood but probably the most important safety manoeuvre. Many motorists naturally think that cyclist must always be on the side.
What is probably required is focused education on the above 2 and an important part of the highway test.

Sweeping comments like cyclist have the right to use the entire road is not helpful. Even motorist do not not have the right to the entire road. A motorists cannot be on the right most fast lane if he or she is puttering along. Nor can they be between lanes.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (25 Jan 2015)

nickyboy said:


> I think there is a logical argument for mandatory testing for cyclists. Every other (other than horse riders?) road user has to so why not? Basic stuff about road signs, road markings, safety awareness and a test of bike handling.
> 
> Cycle paths? Sure, when they are maintained and cleaned to the same standard as roads. Until then, no way


At what age do we start with the mandatory testing given most people are pre ot very early school age when they learn to ride a bike: Can a 5 year old who can (maybe not should, but can) mix it with motor vehicles really be expected to get to grips with the highway code and perform in a test situation? Extreme e.g. But commensurate to passing a test at the outset of a driving career. Would you have sliding of responsibility for age and immaturity too or would an 8 year old be held and treated as legally/morally accountable as an 18 or 38 year old?

Not being facetious but cycling, like walking or horses on roads, doesn't require an age limit defined in law to begin. To go anywhere down that road would be disastrous all ways up and TBH as a driver I would not want the inconsistency of not knowing if I was coming up on an untested e.g. 15 year old on a bike or a tested 18 year old say. (not saying the tested rider would be better but its a whole other can of worms from both aspects then)


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> A motorists cannot be on the right most fast lane


This is a bit of an aside, but can you find me anywhere in the Highway Code or in the legislation it references that the phrase "fast lane" is used?


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2015)

youngoldbloke said:


> Obviously - HGC, like HGV drivers do


My cargo cycle transports passengers not goods. But they're friends and family members, not members of the public, so I don't think a PSC licence would be relevant. Can you advise on the appropriate test/training requirement?


----------



## benb (25 Jan 2015)

The reason we test motorists is that a motor vehicle is a complicated and dangerous machine that poses serious and significant risks to others.

Of course that's not necessary for cyclists.


----------



## youngoldbloke (25 Jan 2015)

No idea - maybe a requirement for bikes above a certain weight? Can you drive an HGV on an ordinary licence if it's private use only? > Need a tongue-in-cheek smiley!
edit - reply to Dan B above


----------



## dr snuggles (25 Jan 2015)

A few years ago I was having a similar conversation when the resident meat head interjected with "why should people have to move over for cyclists? They're an obstruction and shouldn't be allowed on the road." I pointed out that when drivers see someone on a horse , which is undoubtedly more of an obstruction, they become all courteous and polite yet when they come across a cyclist which must be half the size (well I am anyway) they Seethe with anger at times and deliberately "punishment pass" etc. "A horse is in no way an obstruction on the road and they have every right to be there" was the response. Strange that when I pointed out that his daughter had a horse and regularly slowed the traffic around our local area that he became aggressive and threatened to punch my face off! Bizarre attitude towards cyclists never ceases to amaze me. What is the problem?


----------



## Arrowfoot (25 Jan 2015)

Dan B said:


> This is a bit of an aside, but can you find me anywhere in the Highway Code or in the legislation it references that the phrase "fast lane" is used?



Common sense and decency will tell you not to be on fast lane if you are slow and holding back others. Legislation and written rules have to cater for all of society including the less intelligent so we need to spell it out.


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2015)

dr snuggles said:


> A few years ago I was having a similar conversation when the resident meat head interjected with "why should people have to move over for cyclists? They're an obstruction and shouldn't be allowed on the road."



http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/19987-driving-too-slow/

I don't know where the obsession with "making progress" comes from. I was surprised at the emphasis on it when I was learning to drive, but tbh I am often tempted to behave exactly the same way when cycling. I think there's just something fundamentally attractive to the human pysche about momentum and the conservation of same.


----------



## Simontm (25 Jan 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> Common sense and decency will tell you not to be on fast lane if you are slow and holding back others. Legislation and written rules have to cater for all of society including the less intelligent so we need to spell it out.


What Dan B is getting at is there is no such thing as a fast lane. Only overtake.

Highway Code:
*137*
On a two-lane dual carriageway you should stay in the left-hand lane. Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right. After overtaking, move back to the left-hand lane when it is safe to do so.

*138*
On a three-lane dual carriageway, you may use the middle lane or the right-hand lane to overtake but return to the middle and then the left-hand lane when it is safe.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2015)

Dan B said:


> My cargo cycle transports passengers not goods. But they're friends and family members, not members of the public, so I don't think a PSC licence would be relevant. Can you advise on the appropriate test/training requirement?





Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981
Section 1.1;



> (1)Subject to the provisions of this section, in this Act " public service vehicle " means a motor vehicle (other than a tramcar) which—
> 
> (a)being a vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers, is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward; or
> 
> (b)being a vehicle not so adapted, is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares in the course of a business of carrying passengers.


So if you stop charging your kids and family you should be fine!


----------



## andyfraser (25 Jan 2015)

Dan B said:


> http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/19987-driving-too-slow/
> 
> I don't know where the obsession with "making progress" comes from. I was surprised at the emphasis on it when I was learning to drive, but tbh I am often tempted to behave exactly the same way when cycling. I think there's just something fundamentally attractive to the human pysche about momentum and the conservation of same.


I'm actually disgusted by mjeone's posts on that thread you linked to. Are they a serving police officer or someone who wants to be? Either way I hate to think there are police officers, or potential police officers, with that attitude.

I was once told by a police officer (disclaimer: this may have been his opinion) that the speed limit is the maximum speed you're legally allowed to do, not necessarily the safest speed and not the speed you _have_ to do for the full length of that limit. He said it may not be safe to drive at the speed limit on some sections of the road and it's up to the driver to adjust their speed accordingly rather than have speed limit signs for every twist and turn, especially on rural roads.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2015)

youngoldbloke said:


> Obviously - HGC, like HGV drivers do




We need to follow the model for commercial vehicles

Obviously a cargo bike fits into the two axle category for definition and cargo trikes into the 3 axle category. we can safely assume that int the case of the trike that two of the axles are "non-driving" as in most cases they have a single drive to the rear axle. Bikes would be the same with a single driven axle

Then there is the issue whether you are articulated (pull a trailer) for which you may need a different test from just the bike / trike


----------



## classic33 (25 Jan 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> We need to follow the model for commercial vehicles
> 
> Obviously a cargo bike fits into the two axle category for definition and cargo trikes into the 3 axle category. we can safely assume that int the case of the trike that two of the axles are "non-driving" as in most cases they have a single drive to the rear axle. Bikes would be the same with a single driven axle
> 
> Then there is the issue whether you are articulated (pull a trailer) for which you may need a different test from just the bike / trike


Four axles and have used a nine foot trailer. Overall length, just under 20 foot.


----------



## classic33 (25 Jan 2015)

andyfraser said:


> I'm actually disgusted by mjeone's posts on that thread you linked to. Are they a serving police officer or someone who wants to be? Either way I hate to think there are police officers, or potential police officers, with that attitude.
> 
> I was once told by a police officer (disclaimer: this may have been his opinion) that the speed limit is the maximum speed you're legally allowed to do, not necessarily the safest speed and not the speed you _have_ to do for the full length of that limit. He said it may not be safe to drive at the speed limit on some sections of the road and it's up to the driver to adjust their speed accordingly rather than have speed limit signs for every twist and turn, especially on rural roads.


The only time a minimum speed is set by signs alone is when a Blue background is used.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2015)

classic33 said:


> The only time a minimum speed is set by signs alone is when a Blue background is used.



Blue background is advisory or information.


----------



## classic33 (25 Jan 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Blue background is advisory or information.


Blue circular sign, with a number on it, indicates the minimum speed limit. 
Blue equals Must Do.


----------



## youngoldbloke (25 Jan 2015)

classic33 said:


> Blue circular sign, with a number on it, indicates the minimum speed limit.
> Blue equals Must Do.


- as long as it's circular, rectangular = informative. Know your traffic signs.


----------



## classic33 (25 Jan 2015)

youngoldbloke said:


> - as long as it's circular, rectangular = informative. Know your traffic signs.


Confirmed what I'd said about the Blue background before posting the last reply.


----------



## youngoldbloke (25 Jan 2015)

Yes, useful booklet. Interesting that the 3 signs re. cycle paths/routes on p136 are circular - does that mean they are 'must do'?
edit: p36


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Blue background is advisory or information.


Or may be an indication that you're on the motorway


----------



## classic33 (25 Jan 2015)

youngoldbloke said:


> Yes, useful booklet. Interesting that the 3 signs re. cycle paths/routes on p136 are circular - does that mean they are 'must do'?


I referred to to the Highway Code.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2015)

Dan B said:


> Or may be an indication that you're on the motorway



.. as in "advised' that you are on the motorway?


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2015)

classic33 said:


> Blue circular sign, with a number on it, indicates the minimum speed limit.
> Blue equals Must Do.






Blue DOES NOT equal "must do"!


Unless you "must park" when you see one of these?








.. and it is no wonder we are having a crisis in Casualty departments when everyone has to go to hospital when you see one of these:







Even the blue circular signs are not "mandatory"



> Circle blue signs mainly give a positive (mandatory) instruction (i.e. you must).An exception to this is the blue circle minimum speed limit sign (i.e. you must not travel at speeds shown _*unless it is unsafe or impractical to do so) *_the end of this restriction is denoted by the same sign with a red diagonal from the bottom left to the top right.



My emphasis


----------



## youngoldbloke (25 Jan 2015)

classic33 said:


> I referred to to the Highway Code.


I referred to Know Your Traffic Signs linked to in my post above. (BTW it was not a comment directed at you).


----------



## classic33 (25 Jan 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> So you "must park" when you see one of these?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What shape are speed signs?


----------



## youngoldbloke (25 Jan 2015)

Circular means must do, rectangular advisory. _*Blue text*_ in cycle chat post = Link


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2015)

classic33 said:


> What shape are speed signs?



My apologies. on the iPhone and hadn't finished editing before you replied


----------



## ianrauk (25 Jan 2015)

I think your work mate should just


----------



## steveindenmark (25 Jan 2015)

I live in a country where everyone cycles. It is so bloody difficult to start an anti cycling arguement.


----------



## albion (25 Jan 2015)

It is pro cycling here too mainly.

Even Norman Tebbit is pro bike, what with with his tales about his dads job seeking.


----------



## benb (26 Jan 2015)

If blue circular is "Must Do" what are we to make of this:


----------



## Dan B (26 Jan 2015)

benb said:


> If blue circular is "Must Do" what are we to make of this:


I saw one of those the other day but couldn't find either a volleyball net or a parent and child to play against. Does anyone know what the penalty is for ignoring the sign?


----------



## youngoldbloke (26 Jan 2015)

benb said:


> If blue circular is "Must Do" what are we to make of this:


Yes, I asked that earlier - see p36 'Know Your Traffic Signs'
edit: page 36. Note that the 'Cyclists Dismount' sign is rectangular - therefore ADVISORY only


----------



## classic33 (26 Jan 2015)

benb said:


> If blue circular is "Must Do" what are we to make of this:


Cycle path which must be shared with pedestrians.


----------



## classic33 (26 Jan 2015)

User said:


> I always find this puts me off using them. All that waiting for a pedestrian to do the sharing with detracts from the utility.


One of the most incorrectly used signs, often placed by local councils.
In the meantime though, you'll have to either share the road or become a pedestrian for part of your ride.


----------



## benb (26 Jan 2015)

classic33 said:


> Cycle path which must be shared with pedestrians.



And yet some ignorant drivers will assume it means that cyclists must use the path provided.


----------



## youngoldbloke (26 Jan 2015)

benb said:


> And yet some ignorant drivers will assume it means that cyclists must use the path provided.


Maybe thats because it's circular? What about the one that shows just a bike - 'route for pedal cycles only'. Is that a 'must do' for cyclists or a 'must not do' for everyone else? No wonder people are confused.


----------



## Tim Hall (26 Jan 2015)

Dan B said:


> I saw one of those the other day but couldn't find either a volleyball net or a parent and child to play against. Does anyone know what the penalty is for ignoring the sign?


Two points and change of serve.


----------



## downfader (26 Jan 2015)

ianrauk said:


> I think your work mate should just



Hmm so tempted to print that off and flash it at various people I work with....


----------



## ianrauk (26 Jan 2015)

downfader said:


> Hmm so tempted to print that off and flash it at various people I work with....




Get one of these..and use when necessary .


----------



## downfader (26 Jan 2015)

ianrauk said:


> Get one of these..and use when necessary .


If only I had somewhere to store it, haha!


----------

