Entering a roundabout

[Nimrod103]

(In parts of Europe they instead try to terrify UK drivers by having inside cycle paths that have the right of way across intersecting T junctions, so right turns need real concentration)

Just like in the UK, you mean?


https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/highway-code-change-cyclists-introduced-22882595

Scott.

Interesting diagram as it shows a defined cycle way, yet my understanding is that it applies even where no cycleway is marked. The mere presence of a cycle means that there exists an imaginary cycleway, and gives carte blanche to cyclists to undertake cars when they want to. I’m surprised there have not been many more accidents. But it does increase the dislike of cyclists by motorists.

[servodude]

Just like in the UK, you mean?


https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/highway-code-change-cyclists-introduced-22882595

Scott.

Interesting diagram as it shows a defined cycle way, yet my understanding is that it applies even where no cycleway is marked. The mere presence of a cycle means that there exists an imaginary cycleway, and gives carte blanche to cyclists to undertake cars when they want to. I’m surprised there have not been many more accidents. But it does increase the dislike of cyclists by motorists.

What does?
Are your imaginary motorists so thick as to project their dismay at the rules at other road users?
Should you really let retards like that drive?

[9873210]

What does?
Are your imaginary motorists so thick as to project their dismay at the rules at other road users?
Should you really let retards like that drive?

Those are not imaginary road motorist, thick motorist are real, and drive whether they are allowed to or not.

And they project even more dismay if you adopt the primary position.

[Gerry557]

Just like in the UK, you mean?


https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/highway-code-change-cyclists-introduced-22882595

Scott.

Interesting diagram as it shows a defined cycle way, yet my understanding is that it applies even where no cycleway is marked. The mere presence of a cycle means that there exists an imaginary cycleway, and gives carte blanche to cyclists to undertake cars when they want to. I’m surprised there have not been many more accidents. But it does increase the dislike of cyclists by motorists.

There were more accidents and incidents hence the change in the rules. Too many drivers were doing left hooks. I'm sure the better drivers could read the road ahead and slow down slightly and turn in behind the cyclists.

Unfortunately there are those who have the I own the road attitude and don't realise the mayhem they cause.

Please note... I own the road so you lot get back in your box

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Please stop including the embedded image in every quote/reply. It's unnecessary and makes reading the thread hard. Thanks. (chas49)

[stockton]

It sounds like you are permitted to "take out" cyclists who are parallel to or behind you.

[swill453]

It sounds like you are permitted to "take out" cyclists who are parallel to or behind you.

I do think it's disappointing they put the word "ahead" in there, especially as it only applies if the cyclist is on the road. It makes the rule a bit ambiguous.

(It could be taken that "ahead" is the direction the cyclist is travelling, and doesn't refer to their position.)

Scott.