Video: Chris Boardman urges people to support British Cycling and AA's petition calling for change to Highway Code to prevent 'left hooks'

hm, trying to reason with an evening standard reading tory scum apologist - good luck with that

So the bit about him dooring a cyclist and then suggesting the cyclist was going too fast: St Chris made that up too? Or is that another Python sketch?

"There are places where they perhaps cause too much of a problem for road users and they could have been designed in a smarter way"

The actual quote from the interview.

Where in that does he exclude cyclists as being road users?

Is it illegal to not be in a cycle lane? No, therefore Grayling must be referring to anyone not in a cycle lane as a road user which of course you have to admit could be a cyclist, or a horse, or a traction engine or any other type of carriage legally allowed to use the highway.

HC63 states that when "leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out". Out of and into what? Out of a cycle lane and into the road is what. If you enter something then you must have logically not been in that thing.

Semantics eh!

You may also directly quote the false quote given by the Danial Zeichner MP who questioned him in parliament and explain why he got it wrong. The quote I give is taken directly from the news paper, Zeichners is false and misleading.

Chris Boardman is guilty of falsely paraphrasing the original statement and starting this hysterical non story in the first place by misappropriating the meaning and intent of the original comment like a character from a Month Python sketch. Picture John Cleese screeching "problem for road users, problem for road users" and you pretty much get the picture.

Chris Grayling is not out to "get" cyclist.

Calm down dears.

Beezus fufoon: are you nine?

Greebo954, you have less of a point this time, I shall repeat what I wrote in another thread, please notice that I quote the parlimentary version of Grayling-

Greebo954, you have a point, but it does all depend on how you define the cycle provision.  Grayling was talking about cycle LANES, HC 63-

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer. 

And rule 140- 

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

Cycle lanes are on the road (carriageway), and users of them, being on the road must be defined as road users.

Now if he had said cycle TRACKS, these are  different HC62-

Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you. 

Now, and it is my opinion, that Road Traffic regulations may still apply to cycle tracks, for example, not having working lights while on a cycle track, so that may complicate things as this comes under the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, notice the words Road and Vehicle.   During any of these visability blitzes our forces of law and order do regularly, do they ever do them on a cycle track, shared or otherwise, and do they ever use The Law as part of the arguement on why you need lights?  Has anyone been prosecuted for such an offence, thus setting any precedent?  But I digress.

"Grayling replied: “Where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes.

“And there’s a road alongside – the motorists are the road users, the users of the road.

“It’s fairly straightforward to be honest.”

Grayling, the former Justice secretary and current Transport secretary, should know that these terms are very specific and he should be careful which he uses.  Idiot.  Fairly straightforward to be honest.

Sorry to repeat myself. again but...

Oh, and nothing Brexit there, all good British rules and regulations.

This forum is just a sounding board for lefty nutcases who turn any conversation into a Brexit whinge. Virtually every topic goes that way. It's done, get over it.

 Chris Grayling did not say anything of the sort, that is completely false.

 None of you have read what he did say ( Google Evening Standard 6th Dec 2016) you are all just hysterical old lefty whingers leaping on a bandwagon.

 The journalist who wrote this piece is no better than a red top rag hack.

 Yes I'll sign the petition.

 Stick to Cycling topics and try to pass within a an inch or so of the truth eh.

Well it's quite the week for turning every thread into a Brexit argy bargy.

I do wish we could just get on with what we've voted for and stop sniping. Fuck negativity.

We're one country, deal with that, move forwards, or your petty arguments will ensure it ruins us all. 

It would be nice if someone was suggesting ways how we could engage the country to the public discord and address the issues leading to Brexit. 

Argue for and against global capitalism and the chasms caused between the rich and poor,driven by greed and by being allowed trade  in debt and intangible future pricing of products.... never mind how greed is destroying the very earth upon we live.... all the big issues seem so intangible now... just don't argue about which side of the street you live on or how your neighbour thinks.

Friday night rant over - have a good weekend folks, see you on the road!

@Handlebarcam, perhaps the most tenuous link to Brexit yet! But I suggest you try facebook if you'd like to share your views with like-minded individuals on the topic - their clever algorithms will feed you news and views to re-affirm all the stereotypes, beliefs and realities you want  

Anyway, great petition, duly signed, though not shared as I don't use mainstream social media  

@handlebarcam: more lazy stereotyping.

Puhlease, how many times have you actually been bullied by drivers with Brexit stickers? More likely that as you're close-passed by a Range Rover, and probably white vans, but maybe not Priuses, you mutter something about Brexit under your breath, so that all the baddies neatly fit into one racist, little England camp in your worldview.

Like it or not, disenfranchised provincials were the ones who actually took us out. Kicking the elite in the nuts was a factor, as, of course on some radars, will have been 'so the Poles sod off back home'. But Brexiters don't have the monopoly on self-interested voting; I know a few Remainers who were crying into their cornflakes on the morning after over fears about their sharesaves and pension pots. And politicians of all colours need to do better regarding transport - look at that Labour berk running the inquiry into London's congestion. Two issues utterly conflated, there.

There were as many different reasons for voting out as in. My own can be summed up in one word: Greece. I'd stereotype less about you if you didn't post simplistic soundbites about it on a bike site, which you've now said was satire. Once or twice, fair enough, but it's boring now, and the vote was over 6 months ago.

It is funny how Brexiteers can infer all sorts of motivations for why others voted to leave. The airwaves have been full of rich southerners telling everyone they won because the northern poor were hurting from globalisation (which, of course, they totally had nothing to do with themselves.) Yet Remainers cannot likewise make connections to wider societal trends without being accused of stereotyping, even when careful to qualify their comments with phrases like "proportion of". As for it being unrelated to road safety, some people obviously haven't been barged off the road by Range Rovers with Vote Leave stickers in the back window, nor heard the anti-cycling rhetoric from UKIP politicians which has been extensively covered on this web site over several years. Or maybe you just disagree with my opinion that selfishness on the roads is a mirror of selfishness expressed in the voting booths and this is something which will pose a problem for getting proposals such as Chris's into law. That's OK, it is still mostly a free country, so I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what they can and cannot say, or that they should take their views to the Daily Heil web site just because they differ from mine.

In Melbourne turning vehicles routinely have to give way to pedestrians crossing the side streets. Much to my surprise none of the drivers appeared to be the least bit impatient or frustrated by this situation.

In my view the most significant impact is that the motorist does not therefore feel entitled to own the road, and is happy, yes happy, to share.

I agree it isn't the place, but this baffles me a bit "Brexit will be what we make of it".

No it wont - it will be what a priviliged few make of it, the rest of us just fall into line - unless I can suddenly get Morris Minor's exporting in their millions

Back to the point - brilliant work by Chris. He makes a good point on being right isn't the thing you'd cling to whilst lying in hospital. However, the face that most of us do act as subserviant to the massive boxes of metal has become part of the problem. Anything that isn't a car is an obstacle, a menace, something to be crushed before it delays getting to a drive through coffee venue...

Chris Boardman wrote:

In the vast majority of Europe, and many other places in the world, junctions are dealt with...

By listening to the kind of academics and experts that the English-speaking world has "had enough of"?

Chris Boardman wrote:

Guidence that compels us to treat each other as human beings, and not obstacles, who wouldn't want that?

52% of voters? Or at least the large proportion of them that have bought into a simple-minded, sod-the-rest, winner-takes-all attitude?

Well said Mr Boardman,

Although, let's not kid ourselves too much - we're preaching to the converted on here arent we? Make a difference folks. Copy the link to this page, and the petition page, then take to the Twitterz & Instagrams & spread the word to The Rest Of Them.

This would be such a simple change and would affect a lot of lives for the better. Things DO actually change when a sufficently unignorable number of people make their opinions known and petition accordingly. 

Go and make the world that little bit better. Do it now. Make it happen.

I can't see anything which could been seen as offending the great motoring majority getting passed by the likes of Chris grayling, "why do anything for pedestrians and cyclists, there not road users after all" 

Highway Code

3. Road junctions (170 to 183)

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.

A very commonly broken rule I think.

Its not. if they have started go round them .Possibly hoot and wave your fist. Its GIVE WAY

Signed and shared.

My biggest bugbear with the genaral standards of driving is the number of people who will approach a potentailly hazardous situation (like a roundabout, junction, overtaking a cyclist etc) assuming they're not going to have to stop, and deal with stopping if they have to, rather than assuming they'll have to stop and continuing if they're able to. How many times do people start an overtaking maneuver only to find something coming the other way and have to brake and pull back in at the last minute?

Signed, shared. 

Great quote this by Boardman,

“Guidance that compels us to treat each other as human beings not obstacles - who wouldn’t want that?

Really like that.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. Duly signed and shared on fb...

If a pedestrian is crossing a road near a junction, in almost all cases, they will pull back from the road and let the (usually) beeping car go first. They won't even be angry at it, because they probably do the same when they're driving.

Easily one of most common issues I see daily.

Recently T-boned at a junction by a car emerging from a car park, so I welcome this and will be signing. (Although the fact that he should have given way was pretty bloody obvious).

As a pedestrian I'm appalled at how many cars think they can power through when turning left  into a junction as I'm crossing.

If there is one thing I would add, it is that there should be a maximum speed of ,say, 10 mph when approaching a give way. I've lost count of the number of times cars have approached junctions, roundabouts and light controlled crossings so fast that I've feared for my life( often so fast that they've been unable to stop within the give way lines).  There seems to be absolutely no awareness of how dangerous it can be to make someone swerve or clamp on the brakes in moving traffic.

So much common sense, so well put forward by Chris.

Most people can't imagine a world without multi tonne metal boxes parked in the street or wizzing by with the potential for massive harm.

Filmed in my local town