- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Van driver hits cyclist.jpgDriver anger at cyclists often borne of ignorance of the law finds survey
A survey of drivers carried out by eBikes Direct has found that many are becoming enraged through lack of understanding of cyclists’ rights on the roads. While 39 per cent confessed to having become angry with a cyclist, sizeable percentages had misconceptions about what cyclists are and aren’t allowed to do.
BikeBiz reports that 81 per cent of the 1,000 drivers questioned believe that cyclists are required to remain on the left-hand side of the lane. 65 per cent believe that cyclists are required to use a cycle lane if there is one and 53 per cent expressed the incorrect belief that cyclists are not allowed on dual carriageways. As a result of the survey eBikes Direct has produced an infographic for motorists explaing how to interact safely with cyclists on the road.
Video tells driving instructors why cyclists ride in primary position
As many as 73 per cent of those questioned said that cyclists were not allowed to ride two abreast on the road – a figure that rose to 92 per cent for Londoners.
Other mistaken beliefs included 42 per cent who think that electric bikes aren’t allowed on both cycle lanes and roads and 56.5 per cent who do not believe an electric bike rider is allowed to overtake a car.
“A lack of knowledge about cyclists’ rights on our roads is leading to altercations and accidents,” said Matt Flanagan from eBikes Direct. “In order for us to all stay safe and happy on our roads, it’s vital that we equip ourselves with the right information.”
The survey found that 55 per cent of drivers believe that laws should be passed demanding that cyclists have insurance to ride on the road.
There was also an indication why the Dutch Reach is being widely advocated with 35 per cent saying they do not check behind them when opening their car door.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 9 min 42 sec ago
In all fairness, it almost certainly NEVER happened…
- bobbypuk 18 min 19 sec ago
But it does grate a bit seeing trainers and flat pedals on a Colnago...
- mitsky 29 min 43 sec ago
1) I'd love to see anyone tell an EV driver that they shouldn't be on the road or move out of the way because they pay less VED....
- Another_MAMIL 39 min 57 sec ago
Considering the holes in the saddle, how do you keep them clean?
- Secret_squirrel 43 min 52 sec ago
And then you ahve the UCI explicitly increasing danger by trying to restrict race radio's, rather - than as per F1 - taking steps to restrict whats...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 9 min ago
You could always just let Halfords do all the maintenance for you... *runs for cover*
- wtjs 4 hours 39 min ago
Many of my fellow Tories sincerely hate bike schemes, and our friends sincerely hate these schemes, and road changes create enormous noise on...
- quiff 3 hours 58 min ago
Just had a look on the built sections of this cycle track on Streetview, and I'm impressed. The road where they're protesting (Clifford Bridge Road...
- anotherflat 6 hours 18 min ago
Clearly a design fail for them to make these 3D printed sections too stiff....
- wtjs 6 hours 57 min ago
Norfolk Police said the woman has since been reported for driving without due care and attention. Motorists charged with the offence face a fine of...
Add new comment
25 comments
That infographic is shite - the overtaking tip shows a close pass ffs
Hardly anyone revisits the highway code after passing their test, to keep updated in regards to any new road traffic laws or acts.
It's about time that encountering a cyclist on the UKs various road types were included in the driving test.
I had it out with a driving instructor on evening who close past me with a pupil in the driving seat. His reason, I wasn't going to wait behind you whilst that bus was oncoming on the opposite carriageway.
He was totally indifferent to rule 162 & 163 and that's what is teaching the new drivers. Clueless.
I had an insanely close pass from a driving instructor on a blind bend with an oncoming car (which is why I was in primary). Asked him what the Highway Code said about overtaking, stopping distances, and passing distances for vulnerable road users. No idea whatsoever but was adamant that "cyclists shouldn't be in the middle of the road"
I'm a bit surprised that the two abreast figure isn't higher. Before I started cycling I'd always assumed that cyclists shouldn't ride two abreast - I think the Code is badly worded. People skim it (if they read it at all) and just see "two abreast", not "more than two abreast"
The eBike overtaking question is downright weird.
The most common infraction I get is passes on double whites (or even single solid whites), even if I'm in primary. Guarantee its only cyclists and driving instructors who know about the 10mph rule.
The problem is of course, that people ignorant of the HC feel that they then have a right to instruct other road users how to use the road, and in my experience, the greater the ignorance, the greater the propensity to lay down the law to others.
Regular re-testing has been suggested many times, and would undoubtedly have an effect, but as well as that, any infringement of driving law, including speeding, should not only be punished, but have a mandatory re-test; after all, the driver has shown irrefuteably that they are not capable of driving to the law and the HC. Just imagine how good drivers would become if they knew that the slightest infraction of driving law would mean they would have to pass another test.
As we all know, how most of them passed in the first place is something of a mystery, and the chances of them doing it again would be pretty low.
An example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
( I am, of course, an expert on the DK-effect, despite never having read the original paper. I've seen it referred to a few times, and glanced at it on wikipedia, thus I'm sure I know everything there is to know about it.)
I haven't read anything about the Dunning-Kruger effect, but having deduced it independently, could it please be renamed the Dunning-Kruger-Burton effect?
How about the police carrying out random stop roadside HC tests?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether a "driver" thinks another person should be on the road o not - if the other person is there, the "driver" has to cope.
Or give the 'infractor' a risky punishment pass borne out of indignation that stems from pure ignorance.
If 2 cyclists die per week, with the majority of those due to driver error, it suggests that drivers aren't coping enough, no?
Which in turn suggests the little darlings need some help in getting the fuck off the road, no?
Which in turn suggests people need to not vote for a party that has decimated traffic cops, no?
This is why publicising that close pass mat is a bad idea.
A majority of drivers, if this survey is representative, will see it on social media, ignore the 140 chars of accompanying message, and have their ignorant misconceptions about cyclists having to be 75cm from the kerb reinforced.
Next time they see a cyclist in primary they'll be extra annoyed because the police are going round with a mat that says they're right and evryfink.
It's a nice idea, but naive - it underestimates the sheer scale of drivers' cluelessness about the rights of cyclists.
Easiest fix is to require the current driving theory test to be passed in the period before the picture card driving license is renewed every 10 years. All required infrastructure exists.
i.e. both theory test and picture card only last 10 years similar to the 1 year MOT and VED.
Doesn't catch everyone (I have an old style paper license still) but will cover more people as time passes.
Given how many driver awareness courses are attended each year, these figures would suggest these courses may benefit from being extended by another day to educate drivers further.
Easy fix: Drivers must take a new, written test when the Highway Code is updated or every 5 years. Those who fail should have a 2nd test adminstered within 30 days before having their license revoked.
a written test is utterly meaningless, it's not about ones ability to drive in itself but completely about ones mental attitude toward driving as a whole. the whole system is fucked, it's based on targetting speeds, making progress and individual entitlement over safety of other road users.
The vast majority of people driving (whatever vehicle that happens to be) should be nowhere near a set of keys as things stand and never be allowed on the road ever unless on a velocipede.
we should also restrict motors to a maximum of 80mph and a maximum acceleration of 0-60 in 13 seconds. They should be all in day-glow yellow too, you know following the whole 'hi-vis' argument.
I do not disagree with you. That said, there has to be a system in place to show drivers are at least learning updates to Highway Code and means of documenting and penalizing those who do meet the standard. Ultimately, changing attitudes is harder than passing legislation. Sadly, there will always be people who value the four seconds saved in making a dangerous pass over the safety of others. The 'Easy Fix' element in my statement was the piece on documentation/penalization.
I'm not so sure limiting vehicles to that extent will benefit anyone. I've had close calls with anything from a Ford KA (which might have less power than your proposed changes) to a Chevrolet Suburban.
This is not a surprise to me at all.
What I'd like to see is compulsory re-testing of license holders every 5 or 10 years (depending on cost etc). If they fail the re-test, then they have a further 6 months to pass the test or lose their license.
This would also prevent issues with older people driving when they're no longer capable.
It's a stupid survey.
Some of those 81% must also be cyclists, surely this just confirms that some people don't know the highway code.
well there are certainly some that post on here advocating such an approach.
Consecutive governments are culpable in all of this, their failure to tighten the driving test and not retest drivers to stringent requirements is why we have so many deaths and seriously injured. That and police forces that are reluctant to apply the law, or just apply it when they ssee fit, a CPS that isn't fit for purpose nor the judges nor the jury system.
Just think about it, a Manchester attack every 4 days, every year, the outrage would be enormous because the government failed to act and yet that is exactly what is going on with millions in fear of their lives pretty much every day.
The hypocrisy makes me vomit.
Obviously comes as no surprise to regular cyclists who will almost certainly have been shouted at by a driver for doing something perfectly legal, but surveys like this are good in that they quantify the problem.
The next step, doing something about it, is the hard part.
“A lack of knowledge about cyclists’ rights on our roads is leading to altercations and accidents,” er no, if its leading to it then its not an accident its an attack adn should be treated as such.
Just 'cos you can't prove it easily does not infer that using a motor vehicle as a weapon should not be classed as an attempt to kill - attempted manslaughter or worse.
Oh for a sane world where using such dangerous devices inferred the need to demonstrate all responsible care been taken in using it if and when one is involved in a traffic incident resulting in injury. If ther is evidence of lack - eg good conditions SMIDSY then at least due care and quickly rising.
And oh for a regular retest - including a quiz on other vulnerable road users!
So between 53% and 80% of drivers surveyed are idiots who haven't read the Highway Code since they were cramming for their driving test...
I don't remember being asked anything about cyclist when I took my test, but that was some 20yrs ago.
Maybe not asked about it in your test, but you did read the HC, didn't you...?
I still do as I quote it quite often.
My point is that there will be a lot of drivers who weren't asked anything therefore will not remember anything. I wonder how many drivers in the last 20yrs have only read the sections relating to cars and never touched the sections on pedestrian, cyclists or animals. Also reading the highway code, understanding the highway code and applying the code are different beasts. I once read the Public Highways Act of around 1780 but don't remember it.