Highway Code ignorance is cause of motorists' agression - from CTC web site

[Wafflycathcsdir]

From the CTC web site...

"Highway Code ignorance is cause of motorists' agression, says councillor February 11 2003

A West Yorkshire councillor says cycling and motoring bodies should work together to educate
motorists on Highway Code guidance on cyclists.

Cllr Martyn Bolt, a memberes and former Chairman of Environment and Transportation on Kirklees
Metropolitan Borough Council, fears that aggressive behaviour towards cyclists could lead to
injuries or deaths if not addressed.

He said: "I have even seen a car driver attempt to reverse into a group of cyclists. Such actions
should be severely punished"

Cllr Bolt believes most problems stem from drivers' ignorance of the Highway Code.

"Drivers see cyclists on quiet roads, some riding two abreast and immediately believe the cyclist is
at fault. This is not the case"

Section 51 of the Highway Code gives the following advice:

Cyclists should:

keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear

keep both feet on the pedals

not ride more than two abreast

ride in single file on narrow or busy roads

not ride close behind another vehicle

not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your
wheels or chain

be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians.
Let them know you are there when necessary.

This clearly allows cyclists to ride in pairs on many roads, particularly over the weekend when many
cycling clubs have their rides.

The reasons why cyclists ride in pairs are not understood by motorists, Cllr Bolt believes.
They include sheltering a young or inexperienced rider from traffic, cyclists are more visible
when two-abreast and riding in pairs gives a 25 per cent reduction in effort from being
shielded from the wind.

Looking to the future, and the targets government has set for increasing cycle journeys, Cllr
Bolt said,

" We stand little chance of achieving these ambitious targets when experienced cyclists feel
intimidated."

ENDS

Contact: Cllr Martyn Bolt 0797 342 9904"

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> "Drivers see cyclists on quiet roads, some riding two abreast and immediately believe the cyclist
> is at fault. This is not the case"

They should then insist then that *cars* are built "half width" with all passengers behind each
other like on a log flume ride at alton towers!

 

[Tony Raven]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:
> From the CTC web site...
>
> The reasons why cyclists ride in pairs are not understood by motorists, Cllr Bolt believes. They
> include sheltering a young or inexperienced rider from traffic, cyclists are more visible when
> two-abreast and riding in pairs gives a 25 per cent reduction in effort from being shielded from
> the wind.
>

Nothing at all to do with having a conversation with your ride companion then.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

 

[Paul - XXX]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter deftly scribbled:

> From the CTC web site...
>
> "Highway Code ignorance is cause of motorists' agression, says councillor February 11 2003

I quite agree.

IMHO one of the main reasons for ignorance of the Highway Code is the car driving test, and the
structure surrounding the test. New drivers are not actually taught to drive anymore, they are
taught to pass the test, then they are on their own. Few seem to be bothered to actually learn any
more (or even basic) roadcraft and also don't appear to care about other road users.

Trouble is, I see the problem, but don't have an answer. I learnt to ride a motorbike at about age
3, I drove a Morris Minor at age 7 (farmland etc) and have driven or rode all my life (I'm 43 now)
and driving, riding etc are all almost 'natural' skills that have also been further enhanced by
years spent on motorcycle and cycle racetracks, as well as car racing. It's this intuitive skill and
knowledge, and also a respect for others, that seems most lacking.

My own view is that there ought to be some form of 'staggered' entry to driving. Maybe after passing
the first test you could only drive up to a certain capacity car. Then another test for a larger car
and so on, in a similar fashion to the motorbike licence testing (Of which I also have a full
licence). I also reckon a system of driving re-tests every few years, maybe 5, and every year after
a certain age, may help a little.

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[Toby Barrett]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> IMHO one of the main reasons for ignorance of the Highway Code is the car driving test, and the
> structure surrounding the test. New drivers are not actually taught to drive anymore, they are
> taught to pass the test, then they are on their own. Few seem to be bothered to actually learn any
> more (or even basic) roadcraft and also don't appear to care about other road users.

I also think the ease of passing the test is part of the reason. I failed my driving test twice
(passed third time) and read the highway code carefully before each test. After passing, I was
amazed to discover, in general, how little my fellow drivers knew of the highway code. Especially
those who passed first time. (I remember one acquaintance who didn't know what the
white-circle-with-black-diagonal meant, and very few seemed to understand the rules about a
yellow-box junction.)

I fully support the introduction of preiodic re-tests of all drivers. It would make sure we actually
re-read the highway code once in a while.

Toby

 

[Tony W]

"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The reasons why cyclists ride in pairs are not understood by motorists,
Cllr
> Bolt believes. They include sheltering a young or inexperienced rider from traffic, cyclists are
> more visible when two-abreast and riding in pairs
gives a
> 25 per cent reduction in effort from being shielded from the wind.

Ahh. That's why time trialists travel 2 abreast -- chatting about how much energy they are
saving -- NOT.

 

[Tony W]

"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Drivers see cyclists on quiet roads, some riding two abreast and
immediately
> believe the cyclist is at fault. This is not the case"

Bloody stupid. Of course the cyclists are at fault. How dare the lycra clad clowns get in the way of
good, honest motorists just trying to go about their business.

FFS -- you'll want me to stick to the speed limit and give up the mobile phone next.

 

[Robert Killingt]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Adrian
Boliston) wrote:

> They should then insist then that *cars* are built "half width" with all passengers behind each
> other like on a log flume ride at alton towers!
If the "cars" then had only two wheels...

;-)

 

[Geraint Jones]

Toby Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: ( After passing, I was amazed to discover, in )
general, how little my fellow drivers knew of the highway code. Especially ( those who passed first
time. (I remember one acquaintance who didn't know ) what the white-circle-with-black-diagonal
meant, and very few seemed to ( understand the rules about a yellow-box junction.)

Of course, there are things in the HC that weren't there when most of us took our driving tests. I
think that the current one is the third edition that I know of since I first started to take notice
again after passing my test (about ten years later, when I started to drive occasionally again). I
am fairly sure, for example, that yellow box junctions did not exist when I were a lad (and you
could have a stoker to keep the fire going while you were still learning).

 

[Peter B]

"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> He said: "I have even seen a car driver attempt to reverse into a group of cyclists. Such actions
> should be severely punished"

In a civilised society we shouldn't look for vengeance nor punish wrongdoers.

We should enlighten them to the errors of their ways and educate them to better co-exist with
their fellows.

I have been led to believe adjustments to the cranium with a Louisville Slugger can prove successful
at achieving these aims. If a Slugger is not readily to hand 531/7005 etc tubing can achieve similar
results. Do not subject the perpetrator to our justice system, they may be punished by having to
forfeit 20 or 30 quid and have to forego a night down the local.

Pete

 

[Johnny Klunk]

> My own view is that there ought to be some form of 'staggered' entry to
driving.
> Maybe after passing the first test you could only drive up to a certain
capacity

This is something I think about frequently, and would really like to see empirical research
accordingly. Its one thing for a 17-23 year old to get their licence and get behind the wheel of a
vauxhall corsa. Its an entirely different matter to get behind the wheel of sports
car/4x4/overpowered family sedan.

No idea how you regulate this. There are insanely overpowered 2 litre cars and some very slow/safe
ones. Maybe placing all cars in a "class" and only letting certain people drive certain classes.
However I virtually guarantee a reduction in road deaths.

 

[Paul - XXX]

"Geraint Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Toby Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: ( After passing, I was amazed to discover, in )
> general, how little my fellow drivers knew of the highway code. Especially ( those who passed
> first time. (I remember one acquaintance who didn't know ) what the
> white-circle-with-black-diagonal meant, and very few seemed to ( understand the rules about a
> yellow-box junction.)
>
> Of course, there are things in the HC that weren't there when most of us took our driving tests. I
> think that the current one is the third edition that I know of since I first started to take
> notice again after passing my test (about ten years later, when I started to drive occasionally
> again). I am fairly sure, for example, that yellow box junctions did not exist when I were a lad
> (and you could have a stoker to keep the fire going while you were still learning).

In which case a re-test every so often would be an ideal way to 'force' you to keep abreast of new
introductions to road signage (for example)

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[Paul - XXX]

"Johnny Klunk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > My own view is that there ought to be some form of 'staggered' entry to
> driving.
> > Maybe after passing the first test you could only drive up to a certain
> capacity
>
>
> This is something I think about frequently, and would really like to see empirical research
> accordingly. Its one thing for a 17-23 year old to get their licence and get behind the wheel of a
> vauxhall corsa. Its an entirely different matter to get behind the wheel of sports
> car/4x4/overpowered family sedan.

Agreed.

> No idea how you regulate this. There are insanely overpowered 2 litre cars and some very slow/safe
> ones. Maybe placing all cars in a "class" and only letting certain people drive certain classes.
> However I virtually guarantee a reduction in road deaths.

I suppose a fair (dunno what others think) way would be to restrict the horsepower and size of a
car. Say to 60 bhp and 10' long (whatever the size of a Corsa/Micra/whatever is). After driving this
for a year, the second test would allow up to say 120 bhp and a Mondeo/Vectra/family saloon type.
Again, maybe another year later a third test would entitle you to drive an unlimited car.

The classes of car you could drive could be listed by the government every year, much like
homologation for racing classes and equipment etc

Mind you, there's then the matter of policing it ..

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[Chris French]

In message <[email protected]>, Paul - ***
<[email protected]> writes
>"Johnny Klunk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > My own view is that there ought to be some form of 'staggered' entry to
>> driving.
>> > Maybe after passing the first test you could only drive up to a certain
>> capacity
>>
>>
>> This is something I think about frequently, and would really like to see empirical research
>> accordingly. Its one thing for a 17-23 year old to get their licence and get behind the wheel of
>> a vauxhall corsa. Its an entirely different matter to get behind the wheel of sports
>> car/4x4/overpowered family sedan.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> No idea how you regulate this. There are insanely overpowered 2 litre cars and some very
>> slow/safe ones. Maybe placing all cars in a "class" and only letting certain people drive certain
>> classes. However I virtually guarantee a reduction in road deaths.
>
>I suppose a fair (dunno what others think) way would be to restrict the horsepower and size
>of a car.
>
I guess something like the way motorcycles are restricted (IIRC) both by engine size an BHP.

I don't have any problem with this idea, though I'm not convinced it would have a great impact on
road casualties.

I think there might be some merit in a sort of advanced test, taken say 3 years after the first
test, as well as regular say 5 yearly retests
--
Chris French, Leeds

 

[Geraint Jones]

Paul kisses claiming to be <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Geraint Jones" <[email protected]> wrote ...
> > Of course, there are things in the HC that weren't there when most of us took our driving
> > tests.
>
> In which case a re-test every so often would be an ideal way to 'force' you to keep abreast of
> new introductions to road signage (for example)

Oi! What makes you think I need to be forced to keep abreast of new introductions to road signage
(for example)? I'll have you know, I'm a HC geek. I even know when Guy is wrong about what signs
mean, but I don't always tell him.

Mind you, I did used to get confused about what a white circle with a black diagonal bar meant, but
that was in the nineteen-seventies when the Transport of Department kept changing what it meant.

 

[James Annan]

Toby Barrett <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> I fully support the introduction of preiodic re-tests of all drivers.

While I have no objection to it, it seems pretty unrealistic. Considering that a motorist with a
history of convictions frequently keeps their license on the grounds that they 'need' it, what
chance is there of removing licenses from people who have not actually done anything wrong except
fail a test? Also, it seems pretty clear that crash rates drop markedly with age/experience, so
people who by definition already do have significant experience seems to be a poor target.

James

 

[Paul - XXX]

James Annan deftly scribbled:

> Toby Barrett <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> I fully support the introduction of preiodic re-tests of all drivers.
>
> While I have no objection to it, it seems pretty unrealistic. Considering that a motorist with a
> history of convictions frequently keeps their license on the grounds that they 'need' it, what
> chance is there of removing licenses from people who have not actually done anything wrong except
> fail a test?

Heheheh .. dunno. As I said, I don't have all the answers, just asking a few questions and making a
few suggestions ..

> Also, it seems pretty clear that crash rates drop markedly with age/experience, so people who by
> definition already do have significant experience seems to be a poor target.

I would assume it would be for new drivers, and phased in over, say, five years. The re-tests would
not have to be taken if you had already held a licence for five years.

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[Rory]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter deftly scribbled:
>
> > From the CTC web site...
> >
> > "Highway Code ignorance is cause of motorists' agression, says councillor February 11 2003
>
> I quite agree.
>
> My own view is that there ought to be some form of 'staggered' entry to driving. Maybe after
> passing the first test you could only drive up to a certain capacity car. Then another test for a
> larger car and so on, in a similar fashion to the motorbike licence testing (Of which I also have
> a full licence). I also reckon a system of driving re-tests every few years, maybe 5, and every
> year after a certain age, may help a little.

I think something like this will have to come. The Car-Bike problem is only really a small part of
the problem. Car-Pedestrian & Car-Car incidents prob. account for more accidents. Funny how the gov
only has the stomach to impose such conditions on minorities like learner
m/c'ists "for their own benefit" but won't do anything to restrict motorists for all our benefit.

As well as a real driving test plus re-testing as suggested, perhaps some sort of psychological
profile to determine if you should drive at all?

 

[Paul - XXX]

Geraint Jones deftly scribbled:

> Paul kisses claiming to be <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Geraint Jones" <[email protected]> wrote ...
>> > Of course, there are things in the HC that weren't there when most of us took our driving
>> > tests.
>>
>> In which case a re-test every so often would be an ideal way to 'force' you to keep abreast of
>> new introductions to road signage (for example)
>
> Oi! What makes you think I need to be forced to keep abreast of new introductions to road signage
> (for example)? I'll have you know, I'm a HC geek. I even know when Guy is wrong about what signs
> mean, but I don't always tell him.

Heheheh, sorry, what I meant was it would be an ideal way to keep everyone, not just you, conversant
with changes to the HC etc.

> Mind you, I did used to get confused about what a white circle with a black diagonal bar
> meant, but that was in the nineteen-seventies when the Transport of Department kept changing
> what it meant.

Didn't everyone ? It seems that they were the only ones who knew what it was for, they just didn't
tell enough people about it.

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[Paul - XXX]

Rory deftly scribbled:

> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter deftly scribbled:
>>
>>> From the CTC web site...
>>>
>>> "Highway Code ignorance is cause of motorists' agression, says councillor February 11 2003
>>
>> I quite agree.
>>
>> My own view is that there ought to be some form of 'staggered' entry to driving. Maybe after
>> passing the first test you could only drive up to a certain capacity car. Then another test for a
>> larger car and so on, in a similar fashion to the motorbike licence testing (Of which I also have
>> a full licence). I also reckon a system of driving re-tests every few years, maybe 5, and every
>> year after a certain age, may help a little.
>
> I think something like this will have to come. The Car-Bike problem is only really a small part of
> the problem. Car-Pedestrian & Car-Car incidents prob. account for more accidents. Funny how the
> gov only has the stomach to impose such conditions on minorities like learner
> m/c'ists "for their own benefit" but won't do anything to restrict motorists for all our benefit.
>
> As well as a real driving test plus re-testing as suggested, perhaps some sort of psychological
> profile to determine if you should drive at all?

LOL, you can't pass the test, those green socks really make a statement ...

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm