Is it frowned upon?

[winston smith]

Dunno about where you live, but in the west Midlands it wouldn't be possible to use the cycle box cos it's normally filled up with tw@s in cars, desperate for that extra 8-10 foot of road "ownership", so busy checking their facebook feed that they don't notice the lights changing to Green.

[raesewell]

As already said, reading the highway code is always a good idea.

[fastbob]

Well why on the log book is it classed as a bicycle?

try using that with a traffic cop and see how far it gets ya ...

 

I see what you are saying but why does the log book class it as a bicycle and not a motorcycle?

 

Because a bicycle doesn't have a log book . It doesn't class it as a bicycle , it refers to it as a bicycle . But it is still a Motorbike ( Motorised Bicycle ) because it's got a motor in it . Simple logic .

[Mickly]

I’ve been using the bike boxes since they were physically invented ( unless there is a police car in the queue ) doesn’t mean I’ll never get done, just been lucky so far I guess.

Btw - the Highway Code is a ‘code’ not Highway Law, it is a useful reference, but don’t try and use it in court of law.

[raesewell]

Some aspects of the highway code are legal requirements.

[Mickly]

Some aspects of the highway code are legal requirements.

 

They maybe, but the Highway law is enshrined within acts of Parliament, the Highway Code reflects the law, and like I said, it’s a good reference, it also serves to prevent the general public from having to interpret a lot of legal jargon.

This is what the RAC quote: “taken alone the Highway Code is not the law. But many of its instructions are backed up by law and so have legal muscle behind them. Those points supported by the law are clearly identified in the document by wording like 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', rather than 'should' or 'should not'.13 Mar 2018”

[Six30]

No point in the boxes for cyclists they just ride through red lights any way .

[raesewell]

Some aspects of the highway code are legal requirements.

 

They maybe, but the Highway law is enshrined within acts of Parliament, the Highway Code reflects the law, and like I said, it’s a good reference, it also serves to prevent the general public from having to interpret a lot of legal jargon.

This is what the RAC quote: “taken alone the Highway Code is not the law. But many of its instructions are backed up by law and so have legal muscle behind them. Those points supported by the law are clearly identified in the document by wording like 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', rather than 'should' or 'should not'.13 Mar 2018”

Swat I sed innit

Edited May 29, 2019 by raesewell

[Six30]

Swat I sed innit

 

Where , proof needed .

[Pbassred]

If only they had similar advice about cyclists actually using cycle lanes .

Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory even when signed with a blue circle. Its around rule 60 in the highway code.

No point in the boxes for cyclists they just ride through red lights any way .

Some do. Most don't. A bit like car drivers.

[Six30]

If only they had similar advice about cyclists actually using cycle lanes .

Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory even when signed with a blue circle. Its around rule 60 in the highway code.

No point in the boxes for cyclists they just ride through red lights any way .

Some do. Most don't. A bit like car drivers.

 

You ride a push bike don't you

and that should be most do some don't .

[xMachina]

No point in the boxes for cyclists they just ride through red lights any way .

 

Some do. Most don't.

 

LOLWUT?!?!

[Smithers]

I'd like to see a ban on all pedal cycles using the road. They're a bloody menace! (and they don't pay tax or insurance).

[geofferz]

You can wait in a cycle box, but you'll get treated like a cyclist if I see you in there.

 

[dynax]

I'd like to see a ban on all pedal cycles using the road. They're a bloody menace! (and they don't pay tax or insurance).

 

I use cycle lanes whenever possible, round here there are quite a few dual cycle/pedestrian paths, so at least i can legally run over walkers if they don't get out of my way

[onesea]

Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory even when signed with a blue circle. Its around rule 60 in the highway code.

Which can be very frustrating for car drivers, I know some cycle lanes are not in the best condition.

Then when the council/ national park spend reportedly Millions on a 2.5 mile cycle lane (its smoother than the road) to make it safer and reduce holdups and then cyclists just ignore it. You start to loose sympathy, particularly when there was talk of expanding it to make decent network across the national park.

Not seen any talk of the expansion since they built it, I guess they figured it was a waste of money you can take a horse to water.

As for the Motorcyles in cycle Box's I know the rules, I generally don't use them, the if it means I can make significant progress I might. When filtering it's reassuring to know its there incase the cars leave no space.

[Pbassred]

Then when the council/ national park spend reportedly Millions on a 2.5 mile cycle lane (its smoother than the road) to make it safer and reduce holdups and then cyclists just ignore it. You start to loose sympathy, particularly when there was talk of expanding it to make decent network across the national park.

Not seen any talk of the expansion since they built it, I guess they figured it was a waste of money you can take a horse to water.

Here's the thing about cycle lanes ( a diversion from the topic, but since we're here....) They built them wrong ..... and dangerous... and irrelevant. Firstly they built the cycle lanes next to or even over existing pavement. The general public uses them as pavement. When you have 3 abreast push chairs a 8 year olds playing tag, that's a real problem. Many have concrete paving slabs built in with moulded tram lines in the direction of travel - That's specifically dangerous for handling. Many are even "shared access". How do you share space between pedestrians and bikes? On top of that, they are not wide enough for 2 bikes to pass each other in opposite directions. They are irrelevant for sports cyclists or anyone aiming to actually GO somewhere because those riders ride too fast for them to be of any use. You really need to ride a bicycle to appreciate their crapness.

No, The councils did that on the cheap to get a headline. Hence why they aren't maintained. You don't make political capital from maintenance.

You're better off on the road.

Oddly enough the ones in London work quite well

 

and they don't pay tax or insurance

They pay the same "ROAD FULL LICENCE" as electric cars. Next time a car driver gets run over by a bicycle do let me know.

Can we stop hating on bikes now. The arguments are old, stupid and wrong. We all use the road.

Start hating pizza delivery riders for making us look bad instead.

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

Round our way they simply painted a line on the pavement and said they'd created X miles of new cycle paths. But at every junction they simply ended the "cycle lane" so cyclists are dumped back into the traffic, often at the most dangerous point.

The few bits of dedicated cycle lanes they made are unusable due to no maintenance, overhanging branches and broken glass.

As a cyclist I pay road tax on two cars and two motorcycles which is irrelevant because none of that money is used to maintain the roads anyway.

[Guest Richzx6r]

Maybe we should all boycott paying tax??